Bill Overview
Title: Federal Data Center Enhancement Act of 2022
Description: This bill modifies requirements relating to data centers of federal agencies and extends the sunset of provisions regarding the federal data center consolidation initiative. Specifically, the General Services Administration (GSA) must establish minimum requirements for new data centers, including regarding the availability and use of new data centers; the use of sustainable energy sources; uptime percentage; protections against power failures, including on-site energy generation and access to multiple transmission paths; protections against physical intrusions and natural disasters; and information security protections. During the development and planning lifecycle of a new data center, an agency must report to the GSA and Congress upon determining it is likely to make a management or financial decision relating to such center. An agency must (1) regularly assess the application portfolio of the covered agency and ensure that each legacy application is updated, replaced, or modernized, as appropriate, to take advantage of modern technologies; and (2) prioritize and, to the greatest extent possible, leverage commercial cloud environments rather than acquiring, overseeing, or managing custom data center infrastructure. An agency must oversee and manage the data center portfolio and the information technology strategy of the agency in accordance with federal cybersecurity guidelines and directives.
Sponsors: Sen. Rosen, Jacky [D-NV]
Target Audience
Population: People working in or for US federal data centers
Estimated Size: 2450000
- The bill impacts federal agencies, as they are required to report to the GSA and Congress regarding data center management decisions.
- It affects General Services Administration (GSA) employees who will need to establish and enforce new minimum requirements for data centers.
- IT professionals working for the federal government who manage data centers will be directly affected by the new requirements and need for modern technology application.
- Cybersecurity specialists will need to ensure compliance with federal cybersecurity guidelines as per the new bill requirements.
- Employees involved in energy management and sustainability in data centers will be affected due to requirements for sustainable energy use.
Reasoning
- The target population for this policy would predominantly consist of IT professionals working either within federal agencies or contracted by them. These include employees involved in data center management, cybersecurity, and infrastructure management.
- The wellbeing scores will be most affected for individuals whose job functions or environments may change as a result of this policy, particularly those involved in modernizing legacy systems or adopting new technologies such as cloud computing.
- The impact may vary: Some individuals might experience significant positive changes due to improved work environments or job satisfaction from modernized systems, while others might encounter stress due to the adaptation of new technologies or job role changes.
- It is important to note that not all federal employees will be directly impacted—those not involved in data center operations (e.g., administrative staff not related to IT) may not see changes in wellbeing due to this policy.
- Given the budget constraints, initial implementation might focus on high-impact areas or agencies with significant operational or security issues, potentially affecting a smaller subset of employees more significantly.
Simulated Interviews
IT Infrastructure Manager (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy seems promising for improving data center efficiencies and security.
- It may require an initial ramp-up period where workload increases, but long-term benefits are expected.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Cybersecurity Specialist (Chicago, IL)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My role will become more crucial under this policy, potentially leading to more responsibilities but also opportunities for professional growth.
- Securing modernized data centers is a complex challenge that excites me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Federal Contractor (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I welcome the shift towards cloud environments as it puts my skills in high demand.
- However, there might be pressure to deliver under tight timelines.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
GSA Employee (Arlington, VA)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The implementation of new standards will increase my workload significantly.
- I anticipate some frustration initially due to resistance to change, but overall it will professionalize the operations.
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 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Data Center Technician (New York, NY)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The emphasis on sustainable energy is a positive change that aligns with my values.
- The transition might bring job training opportunities, but there's also uncertainty in how roles might shift.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Administrative Officer (Austin, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 20/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy will not directly affect my role, but I anticipate more paperwork and coordination.
- Overall, I expect minimal change in my daily responsibilities.
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 |
Software Developer (Seattle, WA)
Age: 31 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am optimistic about the focus on updating applications, as it opens up new project opportunities.
- The transition phase might be challenging but worth the effort.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Energy Manager (Baltimore, MD)
Age: 47 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy enhances my work satisfaction as it promotes sustainability.
- It solidifies the importance of my role and aligns with my personal goals.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 10 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Project Manager (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 36 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- There will be an increase in workload due to the policy, but it's a positive move towards modernization.
- Projects might face initial hurdles, but ultimately the outcomes justify the efforts.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Policy Analyst (Denver, CO)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could improve efficiencies in federal IT operations, aligning with strategic goals I've supported.
- There might be political hurdles, but these are to be expected.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $250000000 (Low: $200000000, High: $300000000)
Year 2: $230000000 (Low: $180000000, High: $280000000)
Year 3: $220000000 (Low: $170000000, High: $270000000)
Year 5: $210000000 (Low: $160000000, High: $260000000)
Year 10: $190000000 (Low: $140000000, High: $240000000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The policy supports federal IT modernization efforts, which are crucial for maintaining security and efficiency.
- Initial high costs may be offset by long-term savings due to more efficient data management and energy use.
- Risks associated with the transition from legacy systems need careful handling to avoid potential IT failures.
- Impact on employment within data centers as roles may shift due to increased automation and cloud management.