Bill Overview
Title: Options for Ownership Act
Description: This bill directs the Department of Transportation to withhold 15% of federal highway funding from a state that prohibits the sale of motor vehicles that are not zero-emission vehicles. It does not apply to states that impose a fee on motor vehicles that is comparable in revenue to a gasoline tax.
Sponsors: Rep. Bost, Mike [R-IL-12]
Target Audience
Population: People impacted by changes in state vehicle sale regulations due to the Options for Ownership Act
Estimated Size: 330000000
- The bill affects states that might choose to prohibit the sale of non-zero-emission vehicles.
- States that decide to follow the guidelines will continue receiving full federal highway funding.
- The automobile industry and consumers in states considering changes to vehicle sales regulations will be directly impacted.
- The legislation will indirectly affect industries and services related to vehicle emissions.
- It could encourage wider adoption of zero-emission vehicles in states choosing not to sacrifice federal funds.
Reasoning
- The population impacted by this policy will largely include consumers and workers in the automotive industry in states considering changes to vehicle sales regulations. Unlike direct monetary subsidies, the act influences state budgets contingent on their policies around vehicle sales, creating an indirect economic impact.
- States deciding to prohibit non-zero-emission vehicles or impose equivalent fees in response to the policy will have implications for consumer choices and state revenues from the gasoline tax, affecting people's wellbeing both directly (access to vehicles) and indirectly (state tax revenues).
- Given the diverse opinions and experiences regarding traditional vehicles vs. zero-emission vehicles, the opinion spectrum ranges widely across different socioeconomic backgrounds, states, and employment sectors.
- The long-term impact will likely see variation based on the pace of zero-emission vehicle adoption, associated infrastructure development, and industry adjustments.
Simulated Interviews
Auto mechanic (California)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry about my job security as more people might transit to zero-emission vehicles.
- Transitioning to electric cars seems beneficial for the environment, but I need assurance about my job skills and potential retraining.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Salesperson at a car dealership (Texas)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If Texas follows these directives, it could hurt our dealership.
- We might need to transition to selling more zero-emission vehicles, but the infrastructure isn't fully there yet.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
Environmental policy analyst (New York)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a positive step towards reducing carbon emissions and encouraging more sustainable practices.
- It's important to ensure that there are support systems for those economically affected.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 5 |
Auto manufacturing plant worker (Michigan)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned that my factory might close or reduce hours if we don't adapt quickly.
- We need training for electric vehicles, but I'm unsure if the state will support that.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Retired (Florida)
Age: 63 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Switching mandates might increase vehicle costs, which concerns me on a fixed income.
- I understand the environmental need, but hope there's assistance for folks like me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
College student (Colorado)
Age: 22 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this could push more states to adopt electric vehicles, aligning with climate goals.
- It's crucial for more public and hard-to-reach areas to be accessible to zero-emission vehicles.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Stay-at-home parent (Ohio)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm open to buying an electric car but worried about initial costs and charging stations availability.
- This policy might make EVs more accessible if states push.
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 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Public transportation employee (Illinois)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could lead to gains in electrifying public transportation.
- Challenges lie in ensuring that infrastructure keeps pace with vehicle sales.
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 | 10 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Software engineer (Georgia)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm excited about further adoption of electric vehicles; it's a trailblazer move.
- My concern is about state's infrastructure readiness to support these transitions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 5 |
Truck driver (Nevada)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I need assurance that my livelihood won't be abruptly challenged by such bills.
- The transitional support and clarity on incentives are key for me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $0 (Low: $0, High: $10000000)
Year 2: $0 (Low: $0, High: $10000000)
Year 3: $0 (Low: $0, High: $10000000)
Year 5: $0 (Low: $0, High: $10000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $10000000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $10000000)
Key Considerations
- The policy incentivizes states to support zero-emission vehicle sales, potentially expediting the transition to greener technologies.
- States' decisions to opt-out and deal with reduced funding will impact their ability to maintain highway infrastructure.
- Adoption of the policy could significantly impact traditional vehicle sales and manufacturing, particularly in states enforcing non-compliance.