Bill Overview
Title: Federal Mechanical Insulation Act
Description: This bill provides that the installation of mechanical insulation property is an energy or water efficiency measure that may be used in federal buildings under the National Energy Conservation Policy Act.
Sponsors: Rep. Sánchez, Linda T. [D-CA-38]
Target Audience
Population: People in the construction and energy efficiency sectors
Estimated Size: 200000
- Mechanical insulation involves materials and techniques used to insulate pipes, ducts, tanks, and equipment, primarily in commercial and industrial settings.
- The installation of mechanical insulation enhances energy efficiency, reducing energy consumption and improving water conservation.
- The National Energy Conservation Policy Act focuses on improving energy conservation and efficiency in federal buildings.
Reasoning
- We have a target population of 200,000 individuals in the construction and energy efficiency sectors who could be directly impacted by this policy, out of a potential global estimate of one million involved in this type of work.
- The initial budget of $128,000,000 in year 1 allows for significant but not unlimited outreach and effect, suggesting that many people within the target group will see moderate impacts.
- Over 10 years, the budget of $1,280,000,000 scales the potential impact substantially but remains focused on those working with federal buildings, mainly in urban centers.
- Some individuals in the broader community may not be directly affected by this policy if they do not work in federal building maintenance or related industries. Therefore, simulating individuals outside this direct target group helps assess the breadth of non-impacted persons.
- The interviews must include a diverse array of occupations and geographical locations to understand the normative impact and for better representation of the variety within the affected population.
Simulated Interviews
Mechanical Insulation Technician (Austin, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy will likely increase my workload and job security.
- I'm optimistic about the opportunities it could bring, such as training in new materials.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Energy Efficiency Consultant (Seattle, WA)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Excited about potential projects with federal clients.
- Concerned about bureaucratic delays in policy implementation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Project Manager (New York, NY)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy will strengthen the demand for sustainable building materials.
- Would like to see more clarity on funding for smaller firms.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Federal Building Manager (Chicago, IL)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Glad to see financial backing for energy efficiency initiatives at last.
- Concerns about implementation costs and timeline persist.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Mechanical Engineer (Des Moines, IA)
Age: 41 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could lead to more design work focused on sustainability.
- Worried about the readiness of current infrastructure to support these initiatives.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Construction Worker (Denver, CO)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Uncertain about how much of an impact this policy will have on my job.
- Open to pursuing new training opportunities if available.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
Policy Analyst (Washington, DC)
Age: 59 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is pivotal for achieving long-term energy goals.
- Expect initial hurdles in commissioning and contracting.
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 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Small Business Owner (Miami, FL)
Age: 44 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could incentivize more contracts with federal clients.
- Concerned about the competitive market landscape.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Environmental Scientist (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Supports the continued trend of integrating energy efficiency measures in federal policy.
- Sees this policy as a positive move toward decarbonization of buildings.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Architect (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy aligns well with current design initiatives in sustainable architecture.
- Hopeful that it will streamline federal projects that currently face long delays.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $128000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $160000000)
Year 2: $128000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $160000000)
Year 3: $128000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $160000000)
Year 5: $128000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $160000000)
Year 10: $128000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $160000000)
Year 100: $128000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $160000000)
Key Considerations
- There might be an initial lag in cost savings as installation begins and systems optimize.
- Federal budget allocations must be apparent and robust enough to support upfront costs effectively.