Bill Overview
Title: Building Technologies Research and Development Act
Description: This bill requires the Department of Energy to establish a program of research, development, demonstration, and commercial application to develop cost-effective tools, technologies, and practices that reduce emissions from, increase productivity and well-being of occupants in, and increase the energy efficiency and beneficial electrification of new and existing commercial and residential buildings.
Sponsors: Rep. Johnson, Eddie Bernice [D-TX-30]
Target Audience
Population: People living and working in commercial and residential buildings globally
Estimated Size: 333000000
- The bill impacts both commercial and residential buildings, which involves people working and living in these types of buildings.
- The bill focuses on energy efficiency, emissions reduction, and electrification, which are environmental and economic concerns affecting all global populations.
- Improved energy efficiency and reduced emissions in buildings can lead to lower utility costs and healthier living and working environments, affecting all occupants of these buildings worldwide.
- According to the International Energy Agency, buildings account for 28% of global CO2 emissions, indicating that improvements in this sector could impact a substantial portion of the population.
- The global population is approximately 8 billion people, and a significant proportion of them live and work in buildings that could benefit from the technologies and practices developed under this bill.
Reasoning
- The Building Technologies Research and Development Act primarily impacts people based on their experience living or working in buildings that would be targeted for improvement. Considering the significant amount of commercial and residential buildings in the U.S., a large range of Americans will experience some form of impact, though to varying degrees.
- Factors such as current building conditions, local environmental concerns, and socioeconomic standing influence how individuals perceive and experience these improvements. For instance, people living in poor-quality housing or working in older, less energy-efficient commercial buildings might see significant benefits.
- Some individuals may not feel direct impacts if their living or working conditions already meet high energy efficiency standards or if the improvements take more time to be realized in their specific settings.
- Budget constraints mean the policy cannot address every building simultaneously. Hence, prioritization based on energy savings potential or emissions reduction goals will be crucial.
- Conducting this simulation considers diverse demographic profiles to understand varying levels of impact based on age, occupation, geographic location, and the type of building they interact with.
Simulated Interviews
Architect (New York, NY)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see this policy as a potential catalyst for innovation in building design and materials.
- Long-term reduced operating costs for buildings can make green buildings more widespread.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 6 |
Homeowner (Chicago, IL)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- New technologies could mean lower energy bills, which is a relief.
- I'm concerned about potential increases in property taxes from these updates.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Small Business Owner (Seattle, WA)
Age: 50 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope the policy helps make commercial lease spaces more affordable and efficient.
- It's crucial to support small businesses in these transitions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Tech Worker (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm doubtful if there will be any significant change for the better.
- Most modern buildings here already incorporate these elements.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Retired (Miami, FL)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Improved building technologies might make my life more comfortable, especially in hot summers.
- I am interested in seeing how these advancements reduce monthly costs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Student (Austin, TX)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm optimistic about the broader societal effects of more sustainable buildings.
- Unsure how much it will influence my day-to-day life as a student.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Construction Worker (Detroit, MI)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might keep me busy with work in retrofits, which is great.
- Still, I'm wary of how things might change if new technologies reduce job demand.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Teacher (Denver, CO)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If buildings are made more efficient, rent might go down or at least stabilize, which would help a lot.
- Not sure how quickly these changes will be seen for renters.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Environmental Scientist (Houston, TX)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Excited about the potential impact on emissions reduction - this is vital for urban areas.
- Hope the policy pushes aggressive timelines for implementation.
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 | 10 | 7 |
Farmer (Rural Ohio)
Age: 48 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this policy extends to rural areas where building improvements are desperately needed.
- There could be cost savings in the long run, although initial costs can be high.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $300000000 (Low: $250000000, High: $350000000)
Year 2: $350000000 (Low: $300000000, High: $400000000)
Year 3: $400000000 (Low: $350000000, High: $450000000)
Year 5: $450000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $500000000)
Year 10: $500000000 (Low: $450000000, High: $550000000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- Engagement with stakeholders such as construction companies, property developers, and technology firms will be critical for effective implementation.
- The rapid evolution of building technologies might necessitate regular updates to program goals and methods.
- Coordination with existing federal and state energy efficiency initiatives could enhance effectiveness.