Bill Overview
Title: Public Health Air Quality Act of 2022
Description: This bill requires the Environmental Protection Agency to take specified actions related to monitoring and improving air quality, including by implementing a program to administer or conduct emissions measurement and quantification, promulgating regulations related to specified source categories, and deploying not fewer than 1,000 air quality sensors.
Sponsors: Rep. Blunt Rochester, Lisa [D-DE-At Large]
Target Audience
Population: people exposed to regulated environments under U.S. influence
Estimated Size: 332000000
- Air quality affects everyone as it is vital for basic health and wellbeing.
- Regions with industrial activities are more impacted by changes in emissions regulations.
- The deployment of air quality sensors will allow for better monitoring and, therefore, potentially benefit the entire population through improved data and subsequent regulations.
Reasoning
- The policy aims to improve air quality across the U.S. by increasing monitoring and regulation of emissions, which could lead to health benefits for the population.
- The budget constraints indicate a substantial investment over a decade, suggesting medium to long-term impacts on health and wellbeing.
- Not everyone will be directly affected, as some regions already have good air quality or less industrial activity.
- The impact is expected to vary based on proximity to industrial areas and the current state of air quality.
- Wellbeing scores might improve for those currently suffering from poor air quality-related health issues.
- For those in already clean areas, the impact could be minimal.
- The commonness scale will reflect how frequently such profiles appear nationwide, considering urban, suburban, and rural distribution.
Simulated Interviews
teacher (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Air quality improvement is crucial for my health as I struggle with asthma.
- Monitoring emissions could help reduce harmful pollutants.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
software engineer (Austin, TX)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It would be great to have better air quality data for outdoor activities.
- I don't feel directly impacted by poor air quality in my daily life.
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 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
retired steel worker (Pittsburgh, PA)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe this policy will be great for reducing pollution in our area.
- I hope it brings positive changes in my health condition.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
student (Boise, ID)
Age: 27 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy seems important for urban areas, but we already have good air quality here.
- More data could help keep it that way.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
factory worker (Detroit, MI)
Age: 54 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I expect this will help improve air quality which is very needed in my area.
- I worry about implementation delays.
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 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
environmental scientist (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 41 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm optimistic about this policy's potential to enforce stricter regulations.
- Better data can guide more responsible policymaking.
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 |
freelance photographer (New York, NY)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could enhance awareness and lead to cleaner environments.
- Hope it addresses city-wide pollution issues effectively.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
farmer (Rural Kansas)
Age: 36 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't expect this policy to change much out here, but it's good for the cities.
- Keeping air clean is always a positive.
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 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
nurse (Portland, OR)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see firsthand how poor air quality affects health, so this is a great step forward.
- Hopeful for improved patient outcomes with the data collected.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
oil industry worker (Houston, TX)
Age: 48 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Stricter regulations could be challenging for my industry, but good for health.
- Balancing work and health benefits will be crucial.
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 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $1600000000 (Low: $1500000000, High: $1700000000)
Year 2: $900000000 (Low: $850000000, High: $950000000)
Year 3: $900000000 (Low: $850000000, High: $950000000)
Year 5: $900000000 (Low: $850000000, High: $950000000)
Year 10: $900000000 (Low: $850000000, High: $950000000)
Year 100: $900000000 (Low: $850000000, High: $950000000)
Key Considerations
- Implementation and efficiency of air quality sensor deployment and coverage.
- Regulatory impact and administrative effectiveness in data processing and enforcing updated emission standards.
- Potential resistance or pushback from industries affected by stricter regulations and enhanced monitoring.