The Comparison of Sustainable Transportation Act (COST Act) mandates cost analyses for converting the federal fleet to electric or flex-fuel vehicles and requires an analysis of the lifecycle emissions of these vehicle types compared to gasoline vehicles.
Randy Feenstra
Representative
IA-4
The Comparison of Sustainable Transportation Act (COST Act) mandates two key studies comparing alternative fuel options for the federal fleet. First, it requires a cost analysis for replacing gasoline vehicles with either electric vehicles (EVs/PHEVs) or flex-fuel ethanol vehicles, including infrastructure costs. Second, it directs an analysis of the full lifecycle emissions for gasoline, flex-fuel, and electric vehicles. Both studies must be completed and made public within one year of enactment.
The Comparison of Sustainable Transportation Act, or COST Act, won’t change how you drive today, but it’s setting the stage for major decisions about how the federal government drives tomorrow. This bill is all about data: specifically, getting a clear, apples-to-apples comparison of the costs and environmental impact of swapping out the government’s fleet of gasoline vehicles for cleaner alternatives. Think of it as a massive, government-funded consumer report on sustainable transportation.
Section 2 mandates the Comptroller General to conduct two massive cost studies, which must be made public within one year. The goal is to figure out the full financial hit of replacing all federal light-duty vehicles (that’s anything under 8,500 pounds, like your average sedan or pickup truck) with either electric vehicles (EVs and plug-in hybrids) or flex-fuel ethanol vehicles. This isn't just about the sticker price of the cars; crucially, the analysis must include the full cost of building out the necessary infrastructure—whether that’s charging stations for EVs or E85 fueling pumps for ethanol cars—wherever it’s practical nationwide. This is the real-world factor that often gets missed: the cost of the underlying support system.
Meanwhile, Section 3 puts the Secretary of Energy to work on the environmental side of the equation. Using the detailed GREET model (a standard tool for measuring environmental impact), they must analyze the total lifecycle emissions—from manufacturing the car and fuel, to driving it, to disposal—of three vehicle types: standard gasoline, E85 flex-fuel, and battery-electric. This comparison is key because it moves beyond just tailpipe emissions to look at the total carbon footprint. For the average person, this data is valuable because it tackles that complicated question: is an EV really cleaner if the electricity comes from a coal plant, and how does ethanol stack up?
While this bill only affects the government’s vehicles, the data generated will have ripple effects. First, the cost analysis will provide the most comprehensive public data yet on what a nationwide fleet conversion actually costs, which will likely influence state and local government decisions—and perhaps even large corporate fleets. Second, the emissions study provides objective, science-backed metrics that cut through the marketing noise surrounding EVs and biofuels. By making both the cost and emissions data public within a year, the COST Act ensures that future policy decisions about transportation are based on hard facts, not just projections. It’s a classic case of policy being driven by the spreadsheets, which is a good thing when we’re talking about spending taxpayer dollars and reducing environmental impact.