Bill Overview
Title: Consumer and Fuel Retailer Choice Act of 2022
Description: This bill amends the Clean Air Act to address the limitations on Reid Vapor Pressure (a measure of gasoline's volatility) that are placed on gasoline during the summer ozone season, including by applying the Reid Vapor Pressure requirements that are applicable to gasoline blended with 10% ethanol (E10) to gasoline blended with more than 10% ethanol.
Sponsors: Rep. Craig, Angie [D-MN-2]
Target Audience
Population: People relying on gasoline with more than 10% ethanol
Estimated Size: 276000000
- The bill concerns the blending requirements of ethanol in gasoline, particularly during the summer ozone season.
- People who regularly use vehicles that rely on gasoline containing more than 10% ethanol will be directly impacted.
- The ethanol industry and fuel retailers are also impacted as it alters the blending requirements for gasoline. This could potentially expand the market for ethanol-blended fuels.
- The bill pertains to environmental regulations that aim to control ozone levels, thus indirectly affecting individuals concerned with air quality.
Reasoning
- The policy predominantly affects people who use vehicles with gasoline blended with more than 10% ethanol, though this part of the population might not be extremely vast as E15 and higher blends are not yet the standard.
- Industries involved in the production and retail of these fuels are directly impacted. However, individual consumers might see only indirect effects depending on their vehicle type or fuel source availability.
- The policy could have a mild impact on air quality and consequently public health, though this effect would be secondary to more direct impacts on the target group and related industries.
Simulated Interviews
Fuel retailer (Des Moines, Iowa)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think the policy will make it easier for me to offer E15 during the summer, aligning RVP regulations with E10 makes supply less complicated.
- It could mean more customers opting for E15, as the costs will likely be comparable to E10.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Ethanol production worker (Houston, Texas)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could be beneficial for my job as it encourages more ethanol use in fuels.
- Anything that increases demand for ethanol helps stabilize my workplace.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
College professor (Chicago, Illinois)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm not directly affected by this policy since I don't use much gasoline.
- However, as an environmental advocate, I support measures that could potentially lower emissions or improve air quality.
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 | 7 | 8 |
Environmental policy analyst (Los Angeles, California)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Aligning RVP standards is a logical move, environmentally speaking, but monitoring emissions will be key in authenticating any benefits.
- I expect minimal personal impact, given my current fuel habits.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Truck driver (Atlanta, Georgia)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am aware of changes around E15 fuel use, but my main vehicle isn't affected.
- As someone who prefers a bit more ethanol for environmental reasons, the policy makes E15 access easier.
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 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Public health researcher (Denver, Colorado)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The presumed benefit of this policy will be environmental, albeit indirectly.
- I don't predict any personal impact except in the area of research subjects possibly seeing air quality changes over time.
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 |
Farmer (Rural Kansas)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While the policy directly impacts ethanol processors, increased ethanol use generally boosts corn prices, helping farmers like myself.
- Increased summer demand might slightly lift my economic outlook.
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 | 6 | 5 |
Independent researcher (Boston, Massachusetts)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support policies promoting renewable energy or reducing emission potential, although I am not directly impacted by this one.
- Observing impacts on fuel markets is insightful for my work.
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 | 7 | 7 |
Small business owner (Miami, Florida)
Age: 27 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I anticipate fuel cost savings with better access to E15 in the summer, especially if prices stabilize.
- This regulatory alignment is a signal towards increasing the viability of higher ethanol content fuels.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Software developer (Seattle, Washington)
Age: 32 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't foresee any major personal impact, as I primarily rely on public transport and cycling.
- The broader shift towards ethanol is a positive environmental move.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $25000000)
Year 2: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $25000000)
Year 3: $21000000 (Low: $16000000, High: $26000000)
Year 5: $22000000 (Low: $17000000, High: $27000000)
Year 10: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $30000000)
Year 100: $3000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $4000000)
Key Considerations
- Impact on ethanol demand could shift agricultural priorities towards corn and away from other crops.
- Potential changes in air quality regulations relevant to the Reid Vapor Pressure adjustments and their enforcement.
- The effect on vehicle performance and maintenance costs due to the use of higher ethanol blends.