Bill Overview
Title: Revoking Engine and Vehicle Requirements Act of 2022
Description: This bill amends the Clean Air Act by repealing the provision that authorizes states (i.e., California) to be waived from the prohibition against adopting or attempting to enforce emission control standards on new motor vehicles.
Sponsors: Rep. LaMalfa, Doug [R-CA-1]
Target Audience
Population: People living in countries that adopt California-like vehicle emission standards
Estimated Size: 130000000
- The bill impacts the automotive industry by changing regulatory compliance requirements, specifically those related to vehicle emissions.
- California and other states that have adopted California's emission standards will be directly affected, as they will no longer be able to impose their own, stricter standards.
- Consumers of new vehicles in the US will be indirectly impacted, as automakers may align products with the less stringent federal standards instead of various state standards.
- Public health could be impacted due to potential changes in air quality derived from altered vehicle emission practices, affecting populations living in areas currently utilizing stricter emissions standards.
Reasoning
- The budget limit for the policy is substantial and suggests a significant variance in emissions standards that could impact vehicle manufacturing, consumer costs, and public health.
- While the policy mainly impacts California and other adhering states, the ripple effect on vehicle emissions nationwide suggests a broader reach.
- We selected a diverse group of participants based on geographic location, occupation, and personal relevance to the vehicle emissions standards to represent various perspectives.
- The target population includes those directly facing changes in the emissions standards and those indirectly affected by potential air quality alterations or economic implications.
Simulated Interviews
Environmental Engineer (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry that revoking California's ability to set its own emissions standards could result in higher emissions in urban areas.
- Stricter emissions have pushed car manufacturers to innovate, which has been beneficial in the long run.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 7 |
Auto Industry Executive (Houston, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could actually reduce costs for automobile manufacturers and consumers.
- I think national standards are preferable to a patchwork of state rules.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Software Engineer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Dismantling emissions standards could negate progress in air quality improvements.
- I'm pessimistic that automakers will maintain strict emissions protocols without state-level enforcement.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 8 |
Public Health Official (Albany, NY)
Age: 58 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Public health could deteriorate if emissions standards are relaxed everywhere.
- We have seen improvements in asthma rates with strict emissions controls.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 2 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 2 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 2 | 5 |
Mechanic (Austin, TX)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Fewer emissions standards might simplify the reparative work needed for cars.
- However, long-term infrastructure might suffer without proper standards.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
College Student (New York, NY)
Age: 21 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This feels like a step backwards for environmental progress.
- Young people are going to bear the brunt of these changes in policy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 7 |
Retired Auto Worker (Chicago, IL)
Age: 65 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've seen the car industry adapt before, so it might not be as bad as everyone fears.
- Regulations sometimes stifle innovation, but also bring about necessary changes.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 6 |
Environmental Lawyer (Denver, CO)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Going backwards on emissions is frustrating as we have the technology to lead globally.
- I feel there will be long legal battles to maintain stricter standards.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 2 | 7 |
Journalist (Nashville, TN)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a contentious turn in policy, sure to create a divide.
- There are multiple perspectives on whether this alleviates burdens or risks public health.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Urban Planner (Portland, OR)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Urban planning benefits greatly from rigorous emissions standards.
- I hope alternative clean technologies can bridge any gaps that may arise.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $200000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $250000000)
Year 2: $205000000 (Low: $155000000, High: $255000000)
Year 3: $210000000 (Low: $160000000, High: $260000000)
Year 5: $220000000 (Low: $170000000, High: $270000000)
Year 10: $240000000 (Low: $190000000, High: $290000000)
Year 100: $500000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $600000000)
Key Considerations
- Public health impacts due to increased emissions may impose indirect costs, not immediately reflected in government savings.
- Automaker cost savings could indirectly lead to innovation and reinvestment opportunities.
- State governments may face challenges in attempting to legislate stricter local emission standards.