Bill Overview
Title: Military Vehicle Fleet Electrification Act
Description: This bill requires that not less than 75% of the total number of contracted non-tactical vehicles purchased, leased by, or for use of the Department of Defense (DOD) must be electric or zero emission vehicles (or a federally authorized alternative) and use a charging connector type that meets applicable industry accepted standards for interoperability and safety. The bill also authorizes DOD to furnish electric vehicle charging stations at a commissary store or MWR retail facility (i.e., exchange stores and other revenue-generating facilities operated by nonappropriated fund activities of DOD) for commercial use by individuals authorized to access such facilities.
Sponsors: Sen. Warren, Elizabeth [D-MA]
Target Audience
Population: People associated with or employed by the Department of Defense and contractors
Estimated Size: 5000000
- The bill involves the Department of Defense, which encompasses all branches of the U.S. military and their contractors.
- Military personnel and DOD employees will be impacted as the non-tactical vehicle fleet they use will transition to electric or zero-emission vehicles.
- Contractors and manufacturers involved in the production and maintenance of military non-tactical vehicles will need to adapt to new requirements for electric vehicles.
- The establishment of charging stations at DOD facilities may affect personnel who have access to commissary and MWR (Morale, Welfare, and Recreation) facilities.
- The impact extends to suppliers of charging infrastructure and related technology for these facilities.
Reasoning
- The policy affects a wide range of people connected to the Department of Defense, explained as 5 million directly associated individuals, considering both personnel and their families, as well as DOD civilian employees.
- With the policy targeting the electrification of non-tactical vehicles, the primary impacts will be observed among military personnel using these vehicles, and contractors responsible for manufacturing, supplying, or maintaining them.
- A $1 billion budget in the first year suggests that the initial rollout wouldn't impact everyone uniformly, possibly targeting regions or branches with higher infrastructure readiness.
- Given the Department of Defense's extensive structure, individuals not directly involved with transportation or logistics may experience no change.
- Technological adaptations can lead to both increased operational efficiency and certain transitional challenges. Initially, issues such as range anxiety or limited infrastructure might slightly lower satisfaction, but this could improve over time as infrastructure expands.
- The policy indirectly affects those with access to commissary and MWR facilities by introducing charging stations, which could provide lateral benefits by easing personal transportation needs.
Simulated Interviews
DOD Civilian Employee (Texas)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think the policy is a positive change as it will modernize our fleet and reduce emissions. However, I'm concerned about how fast we can adjust to these new technologies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Vehicle Manufacturer (California)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy presents a significant opportunity for growth, but it also demands rapid adaptation in our production processes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Active Duty Military Personnel (Virginia)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm excited about the charging stations at the commissary. It'll make my life easier since I already use an electric vehicle.
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 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Department of Defense Vendor (Florida)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy is likely to create more competition and I worry about my business's ability to meet new specifications.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Policy Analyst (Washington D.C.)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a necessary move to reduce the carbon footprint of our military's operations and aligns with broader environmental goals.
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 |
Tech Start-up Entrepreneur (New York)
Age: 30 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This shift could open new markets and customers for my business, but competition will be tough.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Electric Vehicle Advocate (Colorado)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm thrilled. This is the kind of leadership I expect in transitioning to sustainable practices.
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 |
DOD Budget Analyst (Georgia)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The budget will be a challenge, but it could lead to long-term cost savings and efficiency for the fleet.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Military Spouse (Illinois)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm skeptical about how effective these new vehicles will be, especially if the infrastructure isn't there yet.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Research Scientist (Nevada)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This transition is scientifically sound but might face hurdles in implementation due to size and scale of change.
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 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $1000000000 (Low: $800000000, High: $1200000000)
Year 2: $950000000 (Low: $750000000, High: $1150000000)
Year 3: $900000000 (Low: $700000000, High: $1100000000)
Year 5: $850000000 (Low: $650000000, High: $1050000000)
Year 10: $800000000 (Low: $600000000, High: $1000000000)
Year 100: $500000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $700000000)
Key Considerations
- The shift to electric vehicles aligns with broader government initiatives to reduce carbon emissions.
- Security considerations for electrification in military operations and infrastructure management must be addressed.
- Technology adoption speed can vary and might affect cost and implementation timelines.
- Federal incentives for electrification could mitigate some cost factors.