Bill Overview
Title: Technology Assessment for Air Quality Management Act of 2022
Description: This bill addresses air quality monitoring technology, including by requiring the Environmental Protection Agency to update its Air Sensor Toolbox with specified information and establish an Air Quality Technology Working Group to report on air quality monitoring systems. The Government Accountability Office must inventory national air quality monitoring infrastructure by documenting specified elements, such as locations and populations near such monitors.
Sponsors: Rep. McEachin, A. Donald [D-VA-4]
Target Audience
Population: People living in areas with monitored air quality
Estimated Size: 250000000
- The bill focuses on air quality monitoring technology, which impacts individuals who are directly affected by air pollution levels.
- Air quality management is crucial for public health as poor air quality can lead to respiratory and cardiovascular problems, particularly for those with pre-existing health conditions.
- Populations living in urban and industrial areas are more likely to be affected due to higher pollution levels.
- Community members near existing or planned air quality monitors are specifically mentioned in the bill.
- Vulnerable populations like children, the elderly, and those with pre-existing health conditions are most affected by poor air quality and are therefore directly impacted by this legislation.
Reasoning
- The population eligible for improved air quality monitoring includes a broad range of people, particularly those in urban areas and near industrial sites, where pollution levels are generally higher.
- Given the budget constraints, the policy aims to prioritize areas and populations where the impact of pollution monitoring can bring the greatest benefit, such as regions with vulnerable populations.
- High-population urban centers or areas known for industrial activity present the likelihood of noticeable change in air quality, thus potentially impacting wellbeing significantly.
- Some individuals, especially those living in parts of the country far removed from urban or industrial centers, are likely to notice little to no change due to the monitoring updates.
- The wellbeing estimation considers both the immediate impact of knowing and understanding air quality levels and the potential long-term health benefits from subsequent policy actions that improved monitoring enables.
Simulated Interviews
Environmental Scientist (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe updating air quality monitoring technology is crucial for accurate data collection, which is vital for public health initiatives.
- This policy seems promising in addressing the gaps in our current monitoring system, but effective enforcement and action based on data are necessary too.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Steelworker (Pittsburgh, PA)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- In my area, better monitoring could lead to stricter controls on local plants, benefiting our health.
- If the policy leads to cleaner air, I'd definitely feel better about my health prospects.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Urban Planner (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy will provide valuable data for urban planning and help justify more green spaces.
- I'm hopeful this will push policy-makers to take serious steps toward sustainability.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Teacher (New York, NY)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 12.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Improved air quality monitoring could lead to changes that protect my students' health.
- My family has a history of asthma, so air quality is a personal issue for me.
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 | 7 | 5 |
Retired Farmer (Rural Montana)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- For us here in rural areas, air quality isn't a pressing issue, but keeping agri-industries accountable is always good.
- I doubt this policy will change much for daily life here unless linked to larger environmental changes.
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 |
College Student (Houston, TX)
Age: 21 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could lead to cleaner initiatives around campus and we'd be breathing better air through informed policies.
- I'm hopeful for data transparency and increased control over pollution emitters in the area.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Public Health Official (Chicago, IL)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy aligns with our health goals, offering evidence for regulating emissions.
- Personally, as a parent, I'd welcome any improvement in the air quality that's safe for my child.
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 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Health Coach (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 12.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It will benefit my clients if they see real reductions in pollution and improvements to air quality.
- The implications for public health are substantial if the monitoring leads to actionable policy changes.
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 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Automotive Engineer (Detroit, MI)
Age: 33 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- With Detroit's pollution legacy, this policy could help enforce stricter emission norms.
- I see this as a chance for industry to pivot towards cleaner practices, benefiting everyone.
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 |
Nurse (Miami, FL)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Improved air quality means fewer respiratory cases and hospital visits.
- Any improvement in air quality monitoring is a welcome step for both professional and personal reasons.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $30000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $35000000)
Year 2: $31000000 (Low: $26000000, High: $36000000)
Year 3: $32000000 (Low: $27000000, High: $37000000)
Year 5: $35000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $40000000)
Year 10: $40000000 (Low: $35000000, High: $45000000)
Year 100: $90000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $100000000)
Key Considerations
- Initial setup and operational costs might fluctuate with evolving technological needs and standards.
- Balancing short-term costs with long-term environmental and health benefits is crucial in evaluating the policy's effectiveness.
- The efficiency of the Air Quality Technology Working Group in implementing and adapting new technologies will considerably influence both cost and benefit outcomes.
- Collaborative efforts with state and local governments may be necessary to streamline and maximize monitoring capabilities.