Bill Overview
Title: Armed Forces Fuel Choice Act of 2022
Description: This bill requires each commissary or exchange store located on a military installation in the United States (or any territory or possession of the United States) that offers gasoline for commercial sale to offer the sale of at least one fuel that contains not less than 13% ethanol not later than January 1, 2024. Commissaries and exchanges that require the replacement of an underground storage tank to offer such fuel must offer the sale not later than January 1, 2025.
Sponsors: Sen. Thune, John [R-SD]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals who shop at military commissaries or exchanges in the United States
Estimated Size: 12000000
- The population of active duty military personnel who shop at commissaries or exchanges will be directly impacted as they will have access to a different type of fuel (at least 13% ethanol) when purchasing gasoline from these locations.
- According to the Defense Manpower Data Center, there are over 1.3 million active duty military personnel in the United States.
- In addition to active duty members, reservists, retirees, and their eligible family members also have access to commissaries and exchanges.
- The Defense Commissary Agency reports around 12 million eligible patrons, though not all of these individuals shop at commissaries regularly.
- Ethanol-blended fuels could also impact civilians who live on or near military installations and have access to these fuel sources.
Reasoning
- The population primarily impacted includes active duty military personnel, reservists, retirees, and eligible family members shopping at commissaries or exchanges, which encompasses about 12 million individuals. Since these individuals will have access to more ethanol-blended fuels, this might affect areas like fuel efficiency, emissions, and costs, which in turn could influence their overall wellbeing.
- The budget limits suggest a need not to exceed expenditures of $20 million in year 1 and $51 million over 10 years, constraining the scale to implementing the fuel switch without extensive new infrastructure unless existing facilities already accommodate such improvements.
- To simulate the policy's impact realistically, interviews reflect a cross-section of people with diverse occupations, locations, and impacts given the constraints, including those not directly frequenting these stores or impacted by the fuel change.
- Ethanol as a biofuel could appeal to environmentally conscious individuals, yet potential efficiency trade-offs might concern those looking for other energy solutions. Economic, environmental, and social implications—ranging from gas mileage changes to broader environmental benefits—further compound its perceived value.
Simulated Interviews
Active Duty Soldier (Fort Hood, TX)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having access to ethanol-blended fuel on-base might make it easier to support eco-friendly options.
- I hope it doesn't increase fuel prices, as costs are already tight.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Retired Navy (Norfolk, VA)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy aligns with my values; it's a step towards sustainable practices.
- I believe this kind of initiative could lead to broader adoption of cleaner fuels.
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 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Reservist (Fort Bragg, NC)
Age: 26 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried about how efficient this ethanol fuel will be, especially for long drives.
- If it saves on costs in the long run, I might see the benefit.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
Civilian contractor (San Diego, CA)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't think this change will affect me much as I usually fill up off-base.
- The policy seems well-intentioned but I don't see immediate benefits for myself.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Active Duty Air Force (Anchorage, AK)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If ethanol fuel proves more economical, it might ease some financial strain.
- I'm concerned about any possible negative impacts ethanol might have on my vehicle.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Retired Army (Jacksonville, FL)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am skeptical about how this policy will genuinely benefit us older folks.
- We need more than policy; we need clarity on fuel impacts on older cars.
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 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Active Duty Navy (Oahu, HI)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Access to more modern fuel options aligns with the progressive initiatives I support.
- I'm optimistic that my contribution to environmental goals increases with such policies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Active Duty Marine (Guam)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- In Guam, fuel options are somewhat limited, so more choices are welcome.
- I'm hopeful for the environmental benefits but need to see the economic impact.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Reservist (Colorado Springs, CO)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This change could be a small part of leading towards more significant nationwide energy policy shifts.
- Ethanol implementation has its challenges; its a piece in the larger puzzle of energy sustainability.
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 | 7 | 7 |
LGBT+ Advocate and Civilian Contractor (Alameda, CA)
Age: 36 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I appreciate that the military is prioritizing cleaner fuels; it's a step towards inclusivity even in energy solutions.
- While I may not use the ethanol fuel directly, its existence supports a cleaner community, which I value.
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 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $25000000)
Year 2: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $12000000)
Year 3: $5000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $6000000)
Year 5: $3000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $4000000)
Year 10: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $1500000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The policy mandates involving ethanol require a clear timeline to avoid disruptions in fuel supply at commissaries or exchanges.
- Availability of ethanol at competitive costs could significantly affect the effectiveness of the policy.
- Environmental benefits from reduced fossil fuel reliance and cleaner burning of ethanol-blended fuels need assessment.