Bill Overview
Title: LOWER Energy Bills Act of 2022
Description: This bill requires the Environmental Protection Agency to develop and implement a benchmarking and transparency initiative for certain types of properties (such as commercial or multifamily properties) to (1) advance the knowledge of owners and occupants regarding building energy and water use and greenhouse gas emissions, and (2) inform efforts to reduce energy and water use and greenhouse gas emissions nationwide.
Sponsors: Rep. Castor, Kathy [D-FL-14]
Target Audience
Population: Occupants and owners of commercial and multifamily properties
Estimated Size: 150000000
- The bill focuses on commercial and multifamily properties, which means it targets property owners, property managers, and potentially developers who own or manage these types of buildings.
- Occupants of these properties will also be affected as they may see changes in energy and water use strategies, potentially impacting their utility bills.
- The bill aims to advance knowledge regarding building energy, water use, and emissions, implying that the real estate sector, particularly those in charge of energy management, are a key target demographic.
- Energy and water use data, as well as greenhouse gas emission information, will be more transparent, which could impact policy makers, environmental agencies, and utility companies.
- The initiative may potentially impact a large portion of the population residing in multifamily housing, such as apartments, condominiums, and townhouses.
Reasoning
- The target population primarily includes those residing in multifamily housing as well as owners and managers of such properties who might see a direct impact from the bill.
- We also consider direct and indirect impacts on commercial building owners, operators, and occupants.
- Given the policy's budget and reach, not all affected have a high impact initially, particularly residential occupants, as initial efforts mainly inform owners and managers for long-term benefits.
- Occupants in multifamily housing might experience well-being changes due to potential reductions in utility costs and more sustainable living conditions.
- Indirect impacts exist for those in the broader community of energy management professionals and policy makers, but focusing on direct impacts per the policy's target budget and duration.
Simulated Interviews
Property Manager (New York City, NY)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think the LOWER Act is a wonderful initiative. It's about time we had better tools to manage resources in our buildings.
- The benchmarking could initially be resource-intensive, but it will save us money long-term.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Apartment Dweller (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope the LOWER Act helps lower our utility costs. We all could use a break on those bills.
- Transparency on energy use is great, but I wonder how soon we'll see direct benefits.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Commercial Building Owner (Chicago, IL)
Age: 58 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The LOWER Act could really enhance our efficiency, but we're concerned about the upfront costs of compliance.
- Long-term benefits seem positive if executed well.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Renter in Multifamily Unit (Austin, TX)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The LOWER Act sounds promising for creating awareness and encouraging sustainability.
- I hope the changes come soon to further reduce our carbon footprint.
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 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Real Estate Developer (Miami, FL)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The LOWER Act aligns well with our strategies as developers focused on sustainability.
- Tracking and transparency on resource use can drive innovation in building management.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Retired Apartment Dweller (Seattle, WA)
Age: 64 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If the LOWER Act actually reduces my utility costs, that would be a blessing.
- I'm skeptical but hopeful that this will bring some real savings.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Facility Manager (Houston, TX)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The LOWER Act is a great way to highlight the importance of energy efficiency to upper management.
- It could take a while to reap the full benefits, but it's a move in the right direction.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Environmental Policy Maker (Boston, MA)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The LOWER Act is instrumental for driving systemic changes in building management sector.
- I anticipate it fostering a new era of resource sustainability and policy compliance.
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 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Commercial Lease Holder (Denver, CO)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm optimistic the LOWER Act will help lower our operating costs by driving down energy usage.
- Important for our company image to be energy-efficient and environmentally responsible.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Utility Company Analyst (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 47 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The LOWER Act will greatly enhance data availability, which is crucial for our analysis.
- This initiative could drive new innovation in energy management and conservation.
- The larger effect might take some time to realize, but the groundwork is solid.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)
Year 2: $40000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $50000000)
Year 3: $35000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $45000000)
Year 5: $30000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $40000000)
Year 10: $25000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $35000000)
Year 100: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $15000000)
Key Considerations
- The policy's primary success measure is its ability to drive behavior change in energy and water consumption through increased information access.
- Data privacy concerns will need careful management to ensure property owners' and occupants' compliance and participation.
- Potentially high variability in utility data collection processes and systems across different regions can impact implementation efficacy.