Bill Overview
Title: ECO Campus Act
Description: This bill directs the Department of Energy to establish a grant program to support energy efficiency, renewable energy, and climate resilience improvements at certain public institutions of higher education.
Sponsors: Rep. Lynch, Stephen F. [D-MA-8]
Target Audience
Population: People at public institutions of higher education
Estimated Size: 30000000
- The ECO Campus Act targets public institutions of higher education, including colleges and universities.
- These institutions educate and employ a variety of individuals, including students, faculty, and staff.
- Energy efficiency and climate resilience improvements may benefit the wellbeing of individuals on these campuses by reducing energy costs and improving the campus environment.
- According to UNESCO, there are around 200 million higher education students globally, but this number includes private institutions and non-public systems.
- Faculty and staff at public institutions will also be impacted, further increasing the number of individuals affected.
Reasoning
- The target population includes students, faculty, and staff at public institutions of higher education, constituting about 30 million individuals in the U.S. This includes a mix of demographic backgrounds and socio-economic statuses.
- The policy budget of $6 billion over 10 years is significant, but when distributed across numerous institutions serving millions of individuals, the impact on each individual may be moderate.
- Some individuals, such as those in maintenance or facility roles, may experience more direct impacts due to changes in campus infrastructure and energy systems, affecting job duties.
- Others, such as faculty and students, might notice improvements in the campus environment or reductions in energy costs, although these may initially seem intangible.
- To represent a range of perspectives, the simulated interviews include people from various roles and demographic backgrounds who reflect likely reactions to the policy's implementation.
Simulated Interviews
undergraduate student (Austin, TX)
Age: 20 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm really excited about the ECO Campus Act. Anything that makes my campus more sustainable is a win!
- The policy might also bring more resources into my major, which is focused on sustainability.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
maintenance staff (Madison, WI)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This act could make my job more demanding with new systems to learn.
- But I think modern systems might be easier to maintain and save the university money in the long run.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
professor (Boulder, CO)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The ECO Campus Act aligns with our research goals and could fund collaborative projects.
- It might attract more students interested in sustainability.
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 | 10 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
graduate student (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 25 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could expand the research opportunities available in sustainable architecture.
- Overall student costs might go down if energy efficiencies are significant.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
university administrator (Columbus, OH)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Implementing these changes will demand a lot of coordination and budget adjustments.
- Long-term, though, we might see significant cost savings in energy expenditures.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
research assistant (New York, NY)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This act could provide additional funding for our projects.
- Enhances the reputation of our university as a leader in sustainability.
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 | 10 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
faculty (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While the goals are noble, I'm concerned about the efficiency of such a large federal grant program.
- Resources may not always be allocated effectively within institutions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
student support staff (Seattle, WA)
Age: 32 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Improvements in campus infrastructure could indirectly enhance student wellbeing.
- Environmental wellness is part of overall wellness.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
part-time student, full-time worker (Miami, FL)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 20/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this leads to more resources for students, but I’m uncertain how it will affect me directly.
- If energy costs go down, maybe tuition might stabilize too.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
senior faculty (Ann Arbor, MI)
Age: 54 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm very supportive of this act—it aligns perfectly with my work in environmental studies.
- Could position our institution as a national leader in campus sustainability.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 10 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 10 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 10 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $500000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $600000000)
Year 2: $520000000 (Low: $420000000, High: $620000000)
Year 3: $540000000 (Low: $440000000, High: $640000000)
Year 5: $600000000 (Low: $500000000, High: $700000000)
Year 10: $700000000 (Low: $600000000, High: $800000000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The policy targets a large population, including students, faculty, and staff which affects economic and political considerations.
- This bill could set a precedent for similar policies targeting other public infrastructure.
- Estimating the savings and economic impacts involves considerable uncertainty due to varying institution size and energy needs.