Bill Overview
Title: Public Health Air Quality Act of 2022
Description: This bill requires the Environmental Protection Agency to take specified actions related to monitoring and improving air quality, including by implementing a program to administer or conduct emissions measurement and quantification, promulgating regulations related to specified source categories, and deploying not fewer than 1,000 air quality sensors.
Sponsors: Sen. Duckworth, Tammy [D-IL]
Target Audience
Population: People with respiratory issues or sensitive to air pollution
Estimated Size: 137000000
- The bill targets air quality, so individuals with respiratory issues or sensitivities will be directly impacted.
- Air quality improvements typically benefit those living in areas with high pollution levels such as urban centers or near industrial areas.
- The deployment of air quality sensors suggests that regions previously under-monitored but highly polluted might receive particular attention.
- Globally, respiratory diseases affect a large number of people; for example, the WHO estimates that chronic respiratory diseases affect hundreds of millions worldwide.
Reasoning
- The target population for this policy primarily includes individuals living in urban or industrial areas, as well as those with respiratory conditions like asthma and COPD.
- Air quality improvements from the act would most significantly benefit these groups by potentially reducing health complications associated with poor air quality.
- The budget constraints indicate that improvements and sensor deployments will be targeted to the most critical areas rather than evenly distributed across all regions.
- The population's diversity includes those with minimal interest in air quality due to living in regions that are not heavily polluted.
Simulated Interviews
school teacher (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry about my asthma every day, especially with the air quality here in LA.
- This policy sounds promising if it can actually help reduce pollution.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
oil refinery worker (Houston, TX)
Age: 47 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't have respiratory issues, but I do notice the smog sometimes.
- Not sure how much this policy will change things at work or home.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
retired farmer (Rural Wyoming)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Air quality here is usually good; I think the policy is more for cities.
- I doubt this will affect our way of life much.
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 |
medical student (New York, NY)
Age: 30 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Every day is a struggle with the air quality, especially during the summer!
- More sensors and regulations sound like a step in the right direction.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
consultant (Chicago, IL)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- With COPD, air quality is crucial for me to avoid hospital visits.
- I hope this policy means more days I can breathe easier.
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 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
college student (Seattle, WA)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 17/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Sometimes the air feels stuffy in the summer, but overall I'm pleased.
- I'd like to see how the environment changes over time with this policy.
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 |
stay-at-home parent (Detroit, MI)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry about my kids playing outside, especially with their asthma.
- A policy like this could be a game-changer for families like mine.
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 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
software engineer (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I know air quality can be poor here during certain times of the year.
- Anything that helps me run outside without worrying about air pollution is good.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
construction manager (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm outdoors a lot, and poor air days make it tough for me and my crew.
- I hope this policy helps make more good air days happen.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
entrepreneur (Miami, FL)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Air quality seems okay here except when pollen is high.
- The policy seems more relevant for other parts of the country.
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: $500000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $600000000)
Year 2: $450000000 (Low: $350000000, High: $550000000)
Year 3: $450000000 (Low: $350000000, High: $550000000)
Year 5: $450000000 (Low: $350000000, High: $550000000)
Year 10: $450000000 (Low: $350000000, High: $550000000)
Year 100: $450000000 (Low: $350000000, High: $550000000)
Key Considerations
- The upfront costs related to deploying a significant number of air quality sensors represent a substantial portion of the initial budget.
- Monitoring and enforcement of new regulations can incur variable costs depending on the scale and stringency of regulatory demands.
- Long-term cost savings due to improved public health outcomes can offset some of the program's costs, but this is contingent upon successful implementation and compliance.