Bill Overview
Title: Lowering FUEL Costs Act of 2022
Description: This bill requires the Office of Management and Budget, the General Services Administration, and the Council on Environmental Quality to develop and publicly release short-term and long-term strategies to reduce the cost of transportation fuels for U.S. consumers through federal conservation. The short-term strategies must be implemented within three months of their public release.
Sponsors: Sen. Cortez Masto, Catherine [D-NV]
Target Audience
Population: Global passengers and consumers of goods relying on transportation fuels
Estimated Size: 331000000
- The bill is aimed at developing strategies to reduce transportation fuel costs.
- Transportation fuel costs impact almost all sectors of the economy as well as daily life activities.
- Around 7.9 billion people globally use transportation fueled vehicles, either directly or indirectly for goods and services.
- Transportation fuels are primarily used by commercial, industrial, and personal vehicles.
Reasoning
- The policy is designed to indirectly affect consumers by reducing fuel costs through federal conservation efforts rather than direct financial assistance.
- The $20 million budget in the first year implies limited initial infrastructure or programmatic changes in federal operations focusing on strategic conservation and efficiency.
- The impact will likely be more significant for individuals who are more sensitive to transportation fuel costs, such as those with long commuting distances or low income.
- Considering the large population potentially impacted (331 million), not everyone will experience a noticeable difference, as the initial changes are expected to distribute benefits broadly but thinly.
- Both urban and rural perspectives will be captured, reflecting differing transportation reliance such as public transport versus personal vehicles.
Simulated Interviews
Taxi Driver (New York City, NY)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Any reduction in fuel costs could be beneficial, although I'm skeptical it will trickle down to us drivers directly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Software Developer (Austin, TX)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Fuel costs are not a major concern for me personally, but I understand the broader economic impact.
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 |
Retired (Missoula, MT)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Any help with fuel costs is welcome as it's a significant part of my monthly budget.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Graduate Student (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 27 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm more concerned about public transportation improvements than fuel costs.
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 |
Logistics Manager (Indianapolis, IN)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If fuel costs drop, our operating expenses could improve, potentially leading to business growth.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Government Worker (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Understanding the bureaucratic elements, immediate impacts might be limited, but long-term strategies could be promising.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
College Student (Chicago, IL)
Age: 21 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm more concerned about the environment and climate change than fuel costs directly.
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 (Birmingham, AL)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Fuel savings would help reduce financial stress significantly over time.
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 |
Small Business Owner (Las Vegas, NV)
Age: 48 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Fuel cost reductions would directly benefit my business by improving margins.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Hospitality Worker (Miami, FL)
Age: 26 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think about fuel costs more in relation to how it affects goods prices and overall economic health.
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: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)
Year 3: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $15000000)
Year 5: $10000000 (Low: $7000000, High: $12000000)
Year 10: $8000000 (Low: $6000000, High: $10000000)
Year 100: $5000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $7000000)
Key Considerations
- Potential resistance from the fossil fuel industry due to reduced demand for fuel.
- Need for collaboration between multiple government agencies and alignment with state and local regulations.
- Evaluation of effectiveness requires robust data collection and ongoing analysis to ensure strategies are successful.
- Public communication and transparency about the goals and measures of the policy are essential to gain public support.