Bill Overview
Title: Consumer and Fuel Retailer Choice Act of 2022
Description: This bill amends the Clean Air Act to address the limitations on Reid Vapor Pressure (a measure of gasoline's volatility) that are placed on gasoline during the summer ozone season, including by applying the Reid Vapor Pressure requirements that are applicable to gasoline blended with 10% ethanol (E10) to gasoline blended with more than 10% ethanol.
Sponsors: Sen. Fischer, Deb [R-NE]
Target Audience
Population: Consumers and fuel retailers using gasoline blended with more than 10% ethanol (E15)
Estimated Size: 200000000
- The bill amends the Clean Air Act to address the Reid Vapor Pressure for gasoline with higher ethanol content, which primarily impacts fuel producers, retailers, and consumers who rely on E15 gasoline.
- There are approximately 332 million people in the United States, and around 276 million vehicles. Of these, a significant number are compatible with E15 fuel, which suggests that the legislation could impact a large portion of American drivers and vehicle owners.
- Global production of ethanol is led by the United States and Brazil. Any legislation that influences ethanol fuel standards in the United States could indirectly impact global ethanol markets and production.
- The legislation is most directly related to U.S. fuel consumption, so while it may have international ripple effects, it specifically targets American consumer and retailer behaviors related to ethanol use.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily impacts individuals who drive vehicles compatible with E15 fuel. As such, we are considering a diverse range of such individuals, including urban residents who may be more concerned about ozone levels, rural residents where E15 is more accessible, fuel retailers who will need to adapt to changes, and those involved in the ethanol supply chain.
- Budget constraints imply that massive changes are unlikely immediately, but gradual shifts in consumer usage patterns may be expected over time. This affects our estimations on wellbeing, which may see slight short-term changes but larger long-term ones as infrastructure and market adaptation occur.
- Urban centers may see different impacts compared to rural areas due to higher vehicle density and different ozone levels, which is factored into potential wellbeing changes.
- Consideration is given to the proportion of vehicles that can use E15, accounting for consumer behavior changes contingent on policy implementation, as well as the financial impact on low-income individuals relying on cheap fuel options.
Simulated Interviews
Gas Station Owner (Kansas City, MO)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm cautiously optimistic about this policy. It could mean more customers as we'll offer fuel at potentially lower prices with E15.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Environmental Scientist (Chicago, IL)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a step in the right direction for managing urban ozone levels. E15 could be beneficial if it reduces overall emissions.
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 |
Corn Farmer (Des Moines, IA)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased E15 use could mean higher demand for ethanol and thus more business for us farmers.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Commuter (San Diego, CA)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If E15 proves to be cheaper and as efficient, I'll switch without hesitation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Fuel Station Employee (Austin, TX)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The demand might increase, which means we'll need to work more hours, but that's not necessarily bad if it pays off.
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 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Car Enthusiast/Consultant (New York, NY)
Age: 58 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is an interesting policy as it aligns with trends I've noticed in fuel and vehicle tech improvements. Curious to see long-term impacts on engine performance.
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 | 9 | 7 |
Environmental Lawyer (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Improving fuel standards is crucial. If this reduces emissions, it's a win for urban air quality.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Ride Share Driver (Orlando, FL)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- E15's cheaper pricing could save me money over thousands of miles. It's worth keeping an eye on.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Logistics Manager (Columbus, OH)
Age: 47 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Cost reduction on E15 can be good for operational budgets, but we need to ensure compatibility and performance first.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Retiree (Rural Nebraska)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I might not see direct impacts, but local stations adopting E15 could help the community economically.
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 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 2: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 3: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 5: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 10: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 100: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Key Considerations
- The impact on air quality, particularly during peak ozone periods, remains a significant concern drawing environmental scrutiny.
- Compatibility of existing vehicles with E15 fuel could limit immediate consumer adoption, affecting the pace of market transition.
- Potential for increased ethanol consumption may impact agricultural markets and pricing dynamics.