Bill Overview
Title: DOE Appliance and Equipment Standards Reform and Consumer Protection Act
Description: This bill modifies the process by which the Department of Energy amends, revokes, or implements energy conservation standards for certain consumer products (other than automobiles), such as household appliances.
Sponsors: Rep. Lesko, Debbie [R-AZ-8]
Target Audience
Population: People who use household appliances
Estimated Size: 330000000
- The bill impacts standards for household appliances, affecting manufacturers, retailers, and consumers who use these appliances.
- Energy conservation standards can influence appliance costs and performance, impacting consumer choice and expenses.
- Consumers globally use appliances covered by DOE standards, hence a change in standards can have wide-reaching effects.
- Improved energy standards often lead to lower energy consumption which is relevant to all appliance users.
- Changes in energy standards may require manufacturers to modify appliance designs, affecting their operations.
Reasoning
- The target population is broad as it includes almost every household in the U.S. due to the widespread use of household appliances.
- The policy will likely have varying impacts based on socioeconomic factors, such as income level, which dictates purchasing power and sensitivity to changes in appliance costs.
- We need to include people from different locations and backgrounds to account for regional differences in energy costs and consumption.
- The policy's budget allows for substantial outreach and mitigation of initial cost impacts to retain public support.
- Wellbeing might differentially shift for people based on how much they care about energy efficiency and upfront costs.
Simulated Interviews
Tech Professional (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am supportive of the policy because it aligns with my values towards sustainability.
- However, I am concerned about the potential short-term increase in appliance costs.
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 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Small Business Owner (Houston, TX)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried that the policy will increase costs for my business due to requirements for stock upgrades.
- It could either help by promoting sales of new efficient models or hinder if customers deem new models too expensive.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Nurse (Chicago, IL)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If this policy lowers my energy bills, I would support it.
- Initial appliance cost is a concern but manageable if savings are significant enough over time.
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 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Retired (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 67 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My main concern is the cost of new appliances as I'm on a fixed income.
- I'd appreciate lower energy bills but affording new, compliant appliances might be a hurdle.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
High School Teacher (Miami, FL)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could lessen our household energy expenses, which is appealing.
- I am careful with spending, so initial costs might be a concern but could be mitigated by long-term savings.
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 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Environmental Scientist (Seattle, WA)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is fantastic for environmental reasons and should have been implemented earlier.
- I'm less concerned about potential cost impacts and more focused on the environmental benefits.
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 | 10 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
College Student (New York, NY)
Age: 21 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 20/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hardly notice appliance standards in a dorm setting.
- It might matter more once I live on my own in off-campus housing.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Construction Worker (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 12.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'd need clearer evidence that any increased appliance cost is justified by energy savings.
- I am very conscious of monthly utility expenses.
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 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Farmer (Rural Montana)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I prioritize appliance reliability over small energy savings.
- However, I see potential benefits if reliability is maintained with new standards.
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 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Software Developer (Boston, MA)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If the new standards lead to better products or lower long-term energy costs, I'm for it.
- Initial price spikes would be a concern.
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 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $150000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $200000000)
Year 2: $125000000 (Low: $75000000, High: $175000000)
Year 3: $125000000 (Low: $75000000, High: $175000000)
Year 5: $125000000 (Low: $75000000, High: $175000000)
Year 10: $125000000 (Low: $75000000, High: $175000000)
Year 100: $125000000 (Low: $75000000, High: $175000000)
Key Considerations
- Consumer acceptance and understanding of new standards is crucial for their success.
- Manufacturer compliance timelines and associated costs need careful management.
- The potential for energy and cost savings across the economy is significant but depends on the rate of adoption of new technologies.