Codify — Article

COST Act: Cost analysis of converting federal light-duty fleet to EVs

Requires a comprehensive cost-and-emissions analysis of replacing the federal light-duty fleet with electric or flex-fuel options.

The Brief

The COST Act directs the Comptroller General to analyze the costs of replacing light-duty gasoline vehicles in the Federal fleet with electric vehicles, including plug-in hybrids, and to analyze the costs of replacing them with flex-fuel ethanol vehicles. It also requires the analyses to include the infrastructure costs necessary for nationwide deployment where feasible.

It then tasks the Department of Energy with a lifecycle emissions analysis using the GREET model for the covered vehicle types and to report the results to Congress within one year of enactment.

At a Glance

What It Does

The Comptroller General must conduct two cost analyses: (1) replacing gasoline light-duty vehicles with electric vehicles (including plug-in hybrids) and (2) replacing them with flex-fuel ethanol vehicles, with infrastructure deployment costs included.

Who It Affects

Federal fleet managers and agencies operating light-duty vehicles, the General Services Administration (via the Federal Fleet Report framework), and suppliers of electric and flex-fuel vehicles and related infrastructure.

Why It Matters

It creates a formal, auditable cost baseline for federal fleet transitions and sets the scope for infrastructure needs, influencing procurement and sustainability planning.

More articles like this one.

A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.

Unsubscribe anytime.

What This Bill Actually Does

The COST Act sets up two parallel cost analyses for the federal government’s light-duty fleet. First, it requires the Comptroller General to quantify the costs of replacing gasoline-powered light-duty vehicles with electric vehicles, including plug-in hybrids, and, separately, the costs of replacing them with flex-fuel ethanol vehicles.

A key element is that each analysis must account for the infrastructure required to deploy these technologies nationwide where feasible, ensuring that the long-term costs of charging or fueling are part of the total picture. Second, the bill assigns the Department of Energy the duty to perform a lifecycle emissions analysis using the GREET model, comparing a conventional gasoline vehicle, an E85-capable flex-fuel vehicle, and a battery electric vehicle.

A report outlining these lifecycle results must be submitted to Congress within one year of enactment. Definitions for E85, Federal Fleet, and light-duty vehicle anchor the scope of the analyses, clarifying what counts toward the study population and the emissions accounting.

Together, these provisions aim to provide a rigorous, data-driven basis for federal fleet procurement and sustainability decisions without prescribing any specific transition timelines or mandates.

The Five Things You Need to Know

1

The Comptroller General must conduct two cost analyses: EVs (including plug-in hybrids) and flex-fuel ethanol vehicles, for the federal light-duty fleet.

2

Each cost analysis must include the necessary infrastructure deployment costs across the nation where feasible.

3

Results from the cost analyses must be published online within 1 year of enactment.

4

The Department of Energy must perform a lifecycle emissions analysis using GREET for three vehicle types: conventional gasoline, E85 flex-fuel, and battery electric.

5

Definitions cover E85 (85% ethanol), Federal Fleet (GSA-reported fleet), and Light-Duty Vehicle (GVWR ≤ 8,500 pounds).

Section-by-Section Breakdown

Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections. Expand all ↓

Section 1

Short title and purpose

Establishes the act’s short title as COST Act, or the 'Comparison of Sustainable Transportation Act,' and frames the bill as a directive to analyze costs and emissions related to federal fleet transportation choices.

Section 2

Cost analyses of converting federal light-duty fleets

The Comptroller General must conduct two analyses: (1) costs of replacing gasoline light-duty vehicles with electric vehicles (including plug-in hybrids) and (2) costs of replacing them with flex-fuel ethanol vehicles. Each analysis must include the costs to deploy necessary infrastructure nationwide where feasible, and results must be published online within 1 year of enactment for public and congressional review.

Section 3

Lifecycle emissions analysis

The Secretary of Energy shall perform a lifecycle emissions analysis using the GREET model for three vehicle types: conventional gasoline, E85-capable flex-fuel, and battery electric. A report detailing the lifecycle analyses must be submitted to the specified House and Senate committees within 1 year of enactment.

1 more section
Section 4

Definitions

Defines E85 as a fuel containing 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline; Federal Fleet as the fleet reported in the latest GSA Federal Fleet Report; and Light-Duty Vehicle as a vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating of 8,500 pounds or less.

At scale

This bill is one of many.

Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Economy across all five countries.

Explore Economy in Codify Search →

Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost

Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.

Who Benefits

  • Federal fleet managers will have a clear cost baseline for potential EV and flex-fuel adoptions, aiding procurement decisions.

Who Bears the Cost

  • Federal agencies may incur data-collection and potential transition costs if procurement shifts occur.

Key Issues

The Core Tension

Balancing forward-looking cost and emissions analyses with the practical realities of infrastructure deployment and technology maturation creates a tension between the urge to benchmark future federal fleet choices and the uncertainty surrounding upfront costs, supply chains, and long-term benefits.

The bill relies on modeled cost and emissions analyses, which depend on data quality, future technology costs, and infrastructure assumptions. While the analyses will produce baselines and benchmarks, they do not mandate immediate transitions or funding; any follow-on actions would require separate policy or appropriation processes.

The reliance on the GREET model for lifecycle emissions is standard, but the results will reflect the inputs and scenarios used by DOE, which could influence stakeholder interpretations and planning.

Try it yourself.

Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.