Bill Overview
Title: Zero-Emission Vehicles Act of 2022
Description: This bill requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish a zero-emission passenger vehicle standard. Specifically, the bill sets a schedule for increasing the percentage of zero-emission vehicles a vehicle manufacturer delivers for sale, culminating in a requirement to sell only zero-emission vehicles from 2035 on. The bill also requires the EPA to establish a zero-emission vehicle credit program that approves one zero-emission vehicle credit for each zero-emission vehicle delivered for sale in the United States and partial credits for qualified electric vehicles based on the estimated proportion of the mileage driven on the battery. Manufacturers that fail to meet the minimum required percentage of zero-emission vehicle sales must submit to the EPA a quantity of zero-emission vehicle credits sufficient to offset the excess. Credits may also be sold, transferred, exchanged, or retired in certain circumstances. The bill imposes civil penalties for the failure to comply with zero-emission vehicle credit standards, with collected penalties being deposited into the Highway Trust Fund. After 2035, the EPA must issue injunctions on the manufacture of passenger vehicles other than zero-emission vehicles.
Sponsors: Sen. Merkley, Jeff [D-OR]
Target Audience
Population: Global Automotive Consumers and Manufacturers
Estimated Size: 330000000
- The bill targets the passenger vehicle market, including all manufacturers of passenger vehicles.
- Manufacturers will be mandated to sell only zero-emission vehicles starting from 2035.
- The legislation affects consumers, as it will gradually change the type of vehicles available for purchase.
- Transition to zero-emission vehicles impacts the global automotive supply chain, from parts manufacturers to assembly lines.
- Infrastructure for zero-emission vehicles, such as charging stations, will see increased demand.
- The global push for zero-emission vehicles is relevant in countries with similar environmental initiatives.
Reasoning
- We need to simulate a diverse group of U.S. residents based on age, geography, occupation, and their current vehicle preferences and needs.
- The budget limitations suggest we should focus on the range of impacts, from high to none. We will also need to consider long-term effects, as the policy is focused on a transition by 2035.
- Given the broad scope of vehicle usage across the U.S., include urban and rural perspectives, where access to zero-emission vehicle infrastructure like charging stations may differ significantly.
- Consider regions heavily dependent on automotive manufacturing regarding economic impacts.
- Consider a variety of consumer attitudes towards zero-emission vehicles, from enthusiastic supporters to skeptics concerned about practicality and cost.
Simulated Interviews
Automotive Engineer (Detroit, MI)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy threatens my job security as my company adjusts to new vehicle standards.
- I support environmental initiatives but worry about the short-term economic impact on my community.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Tech Worker (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe in moving to zero-emission vehicles as soon as possible.
- This policy aligns with my lifestyle and values, and I'm excited to see it implemented.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Farmer (Rural Kansas)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm anxious about how this change will affect my business, particularly the availability and cost of suitable vehicles.
- Without affordable alternatives, this policy feels like a threat to my livelihood.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Public Transit Administrator (New York, NY)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy complements our push toward greener urban environments.
- I wish more attention was paid to enhancing public transport alongside promoting private vehicle transitions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Environmental Activist (Austin, TX)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a critical step towards combating climate change.
- I'm optimistic about the societal shift it represents but cautious about whether the implementation will be equitable.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 10 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 10 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 7 |
Ride-Share Driver (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Transitioning my vehicle will be costly, so financial subsidies could help.
- I hope the infrastructure grows quickly enough to support these vehicles.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Real Estate Agent (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Switching to zero-emission vehicles aligns with my personal goals but requires financial incentives.
- Infrastructure improvements for charging are crucial in a city like LA.
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 | 9 | 6 |
Small Business Owner (Dallas, TX)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My business relies on servicing internal combustion engines, and a shift in demand could hurt us.
- I need to start planning for offering new services related to zero-emission vehicles.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
College Student (Montpelier, VT)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm hopeful for a cleaner future, but affordability of zero-emission vehicles is a concern for students like me.
- Development of sustainable public transport should proceed hand-in-hand with new vehicle policies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Electrician (Hillsboro, OR)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could expand my business opportunities as more infrastructure for zero-emission vehicles is needed.
- I'm optimistic about demand but nervous about keeping up with the latest technologies and certifications.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $75000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $100000000)
Year 2: $80000000 (Low: $55000000, High: $105000000)
Year 3: $85000000 (Low: $60000000, High: $110000000)
Year 5: $95000000 (Low: $70000000, High: $125000000)
Year 10: $125000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $150000000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The transition will necessitate significant investment in charging infrastructure across the U.S.
- Automakers may face substantial capital expenditures to realign production capacities and supply chains.
- Consumers may encounter higher vehicle costs, which might be offset over time by savings on fuel and maintenance.
- There will be transitional challenges in the workforce as job roles adapt to new technologies and manufacturing processes.