Bill Overview
Title: EV GRID Act
Description: This bill requires the Department of Energy to complete and publish a study that assesses the ability of the electric system to meet the electricity demand of electric vehicle charging infrastructure that is installed on or after the enactment of this bill.
Sponsors: Sen. Reed, Jack [D-RI]
Target Audience
Population: People impacted by electric vehicle charging infrastructure
Estimated Size: 332000000
- The primary focus of the bill is on electric vehicle (EV) infrastructure and electrical grid capacity to handle EV charging demands.
- The global population will be affected indirectly as it represents a step towards managing increased electricity demand due to EVs, which impacts air quality and energy consumption patterns worldwide.
- Given the global push towards electric vehicles, many countries are similarly interested in or are rolling out policies to assess and build infrastructure for EVs, impacting various stakeholders from consumers to utility providers globally.
Reasoning
- Given that the policy centers around electric vehicle (EV) infrastructure and the related energy grid capacity, the primary affected demographic would include current and prospective EV owners, energy industry professionals, and communities near potential EV infrastructure developments.
- We've identified several subgroups within the U.S. population who are likely to have varying degrees of interaction with and impact from the policy.
- Cost and program size considerations indicate a focus on both urban areas with higher EV adoption and rural areas where infrastructure challenges might be more pronounced.
Simulated Interviews
Software Developer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 36 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a current EV owner, I am keenly interested in the stability and readiness of the grid infrastructure. It directly impacts my ability to charge efficiently.
- I support the policy since it aims to identify and potentially fix grid issues that could affect my daily routine.
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 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Utility Worker (Dallas, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could mean more work stability and potential overtime if infrastructure improvements are made. However, there could also be restructuring concerns in the industry.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Farmer (Rural Kansas)
Age: 27 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Currently, I find it difficult to consider purchasing an EV because the nearest charging station is so far. Improving the grid could change that.
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 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Retired (Miami, FL)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While I'm not directly involved with EVs, I worry about the grid's ability to handle the added demand and how it might affect power reliability.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Student (Seattle, WA)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It’s vital for the environment that we transition to EVs, but it must be supported by a robust grid. I'm glad there is a study focusing on this.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
Taxi Driver (New York City, NY)
Age: 50 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Grid improvements could trickle down benefits even if I don't convert my vehicle soon, by stabilizing energy costs and supplies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 2 |
Fleet Manager (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 33 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm considering transitioning our fleet to EVs, but this depends heavily on the grid's readiness and potential cost savings.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Urban Planner (Chicago, IL)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is directly related to my work as it will influence city planning and infrastructure integration for years to come.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Electrician (Denver, CO)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This study could mean more jobs if infrastructure needs upgrades, but also more pressure and retraining if there are significant updates.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Public Policy Analyst (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policies like this directly guide my work and influence public opinion and regulatory approaches to clean energy infrastructure.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $30000000)
Year 2: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 3: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 5: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The bill's main objective is to assess rather than implement changes, so direct economic impacts are limited to government expenditures for the study.
- Projected costs have uncertainty ranges due to potential variability in study complexity and scope.
- The findings could have significant long-term implications on U.S. infrastructure policies and investment.