Bill Overview
Title: BRIGHT Act
Description: This act expands requirements relating to the procurement and use of energy-efficient lighting in federal buildings. Under current law, public buildings that are constructed or managed by the General Services Administration (GSA) must be equipped with energy-efficient light bulbs and fixtures. Under the act, buildings must be equipped with the most life-cycle cost effective and energy-efficient lighting systems available, including with respect to sensors, fixture distribution, and other elements. The act also specifically establishes requirements relating to the procurement of such lighting systems and modifies other requirements accordingly. The act also requires the GSA to provide information to federal, state, local, and tribal entities about procuring and using such lighting systems in furtherance of governmental efficiency.
Sponsors: Sen. Peters, Gary C. [D-MI]
Target Audience
Population: People affected by changes in government lighting standards
Estimated Size: 2000000
- The bill impacts federal employees working in buildings managed by the GSA, as they will experience changes in lighting.
- People working in federal buildings may face changes in their work environment due to the change in lighting.
- The bill could indirectly affect government contractors and suppliers involved in the provision of lighting systems to the federal government.
- The broader market for energy-efficient lighting systems could be affected due to increased governmental demand, influencing other businesses and consumers.
Reasoning
- The policy directly impacts federal employees working in facilities managed by the General Services Administration (GSA), as they will experience changes in lighting environment. This could affect their daily experience at work, possibly improving their energy and focus if the lighting is better tailored to human needs.
- The broader market for energy-efficient lighting systems may see shifts due to increased government demand, creating economic ripples across energy sectors. This could indirectly affect individuals working in related industries.
- The well-being of people might not show profound changes immediately; however, improved working environments can lead to slight increases in job satisfaction among those directly impacted, while others may see possible economic benefits ripple through if they work in affected industries.
Simulated Interviews
federal employee (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I appreciate efforts to make the workplace more energy efficient. Better lighting could help reduce my headaches.
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 | 7 |
lighting systems supplier (Chicago, IL)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could be a major business opportunity if we can secure contracts. The demand for energy-efficient systems is a great step forward.
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 | 10 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 8 |
state government official (Houston, TX)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This aligns with our goals to promote sustainable policies at the state level. It's encouraging to see federal action.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
office manager (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 37 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm interested to see if the government efficiency measures trickle into private sectors. Improvements in light quality could boost employee morale here.
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 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
environmental consultant (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- These changes are necessary for long-term sustainability. Government setting a precedent could lead to broader societal impact.
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 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 9 |
maintenance worker (New York, NY)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Efforts to improve energy efficiency are good, but I hope maintenance costs and complexities don't go up too much.
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 | 8 | 7 |
small business owner (Seattle, WA)
Age: 54 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Government policy might increase demand for energy-efficient products, which could benefit small businesses like mine.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 10 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 8 |
contractor (Denver, CO)
Age: 26 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could mean more projects and work for my company in the future.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
researcher (Boston, MA)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's an interesting policy for energy-focused research and could provide useful data and learning outcomes.
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 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
environmental lawyer (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The government taking this step could pave the way for stricter measures elsewhere, potentially leading to increased legal business in the sector.
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 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $12000000)
Year 2: $12000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $14000000)
Year 3: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $12000000)
Year 5: $7000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $9000000)
Year 10: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 100: $2000000 (Low: $1000000, High: $3000000)
Key Considerations
- The transition to high-efficiency lighting could initially face resistance due to change management issues among building administrators.
- Potential variability in the price of energy-efficient technologies could affect overall costs and savings.
- The policy's success depends on effective communication and training across various governmental levels.