Linda Rathke:
Hello, and welcome to this episode of ASHRAE Journal Podcast. My name is Linda Rathke, Managing Editor at ASHRAE Journal. Today's guests are Bill Bahnfleth and Bryce Causey.
Bill is a Presidential Fellow ASHRAE Member and a Professor of Architectural Engineering at the Pennsylvania State University.
Bryce is ASHRAE's Manager of Federal Government Affairs. Today, we'll discuss the proposed Federal Facilities Indoor Air Quality Assessment Act. Before we start, can you tell our listeners a little more about yourselves, Bill and Bryce? We'll start with you, Bill.
Bill Bahnfleth:
Hey, thank you, Linda. Glad to be here today. I'm a mechanical engineer by training. I got all of my degrees up to Ph.D. at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. And although I've been a professor at Penn State for going on 33 years, before that, I had several years full time as a consulting engineer. And I also worked for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Facilities Lab. In terms of what I do at the university, my research interests are kind of diverse. I do district energy and thermal storage research, but most of my work in the last 25 years has been related to indoor air quality and specifically to control of bioaerosols. Been a member of ASHRAE since 1981. I was president in 2013-14. And recently I've been the chair of the Epidemic Task Force and the chair of SSPC 241 that wrote that standard. And currently, I'm the Policy and Advisory Subcommittee Chair of the Environmental Health Committee.
Linda Rathke:
Thank you. Thank you. How about you, Bryce?
Bryce Causey:
Yeah. So I'm Bryce Causey, ASHRAE's Manager of Federal Government Affairs in our D.C. office. Been with ASHRAE for roughly over a year and a half now, so don't feel new anymore, but a big part of my job is representing ASHRAE's interests at the federal level and really trying to educate policymakers, regulatory officials on the technical sound guidance that we provide and see if we can get that included in legislation like the legislature we're going to talk about today. It's a big part of my job is going to these HIL meetings to introduce congressional staff to ASHRAE and the resources that we offer and let them know we are a professional technical society that can give good guidance on the built environment.
And so a big part is trying to translate all of that technical guidance and technical feedback that Bill and others so graciously put together and turn that into a good policy message that can resonate with the congressional staff and the regulatory officials that we work with. So a lot of responding to regulatory comments and providing input on legislation is a big part of my day job. And before that, I've worked at GSA, which happens to be a big portion of this bill and worked on the Hill as well. So I have a good background in these issues.
Linda Rathke:
Oh, this is great. You both are terrific guests to discuss this. Thank you both for joining us. So let's get on to talk about the Federal Facilities Indoor Air Quality Assessment Act. Following a weekend of dangerously poor air quality across the Washington region, Congressman James R. Walkinshaw of Virginia, joined by Representatives Brian Fitzpatrick, Pennsylvania, Paul Tonko of New York, Don Beyer of Virginia, and Eleanor Holmes Norton in D.C., introduced the Bipartisan Federal Facilities Indoor Air Quality Assessment Act to identify and address air quality and ventilation problems across federal buildings.
Recently, wildfire smoke pushed the region into code purple conditions, meaning the air was considered very unhealthy for everyone. In response, ASHRAE Society President Sarah Maston said that, and I quote, "Ensuring that federal buildings provide healthy indoor environments is essential to protecting occupant health and supporting productivity." She continued saying, "A comprehensive review of indoor air quality across the federal building portfolio will provide valuable information about how these facilities perform against nationally recognized indoor air quality standards and where improvements may be needed. This legislation demonstrates a commitment to improving the spaces where millions of federal employees and visitors live, work and conduct business."
So with that, Bill, can you describe what this directs the Government Accountability Office, also known as the GAO, to do and in the timelines?
Bill Bahnfleth:
Sure. And of course, I'm adding to some of the things that President Maston already said in that statement you just quoted. At the highest level, it's a comprehensive review of how all federal buildings perform with respect to indoor air quality. And that includes, also as noted, determining to what extent they meet applicable standards and codes that are developed by ASHRAE and other organizations that are noted in the bill, as well as federal regulations. There is federal regulation that's relevant. Now, there's some specific aspects of performance that are called out that I think are worth highlighting. One is the GAO is directed to consider policies and procedures for monitoring, testing and documenting IAQ in federal buildings. Another is a report on the frequency, nature, and causes of IAQ related deficiencies that are identified by the various oversight mechanisms, which will be described in the report. Also, the effectiveness of oversight. So we're doing these things. How well are they working?
And finally, and I think this is very interesting and significant, a report on qualifications and credentials of the contractors and workers involved in HVAC system installation, testing, adjusting, balancing, commissioning and remediation, because that can certainly be a weak link. The workforce is very important. So they're supposed to produce a report with findings and recommendations for action. And that's due not later than 12 months after the bill is enacted.
And also very importantly, all of the agencies that fall under this bill are required to submit action plan reports within six months after that that say what they're going to do about the deficiencies that are identified. I'd say that in some respects, this reminds me of the GAO deliverable from the earlier report on schools. There was a report that was published in 2020 titled K-12 Education: School Districts Frequently Identified Multiple Building Systems Needing Updates or Replacements. So to me, this is a more focused version of that study.
Linda Rathke:
Can you talk a little bit more about the deficiencies and what the problems are that this bill is trying to solve?
Bill Bahnfleth:
Sure. In simplest terms, I think the problem is that too many buildings don't have the capability to maintain indoor air quality that's sufficient to protect and support their occupants. Of course, obviously, it seems we're trying to solve a problem with smoke arriving in Washington from Minnesota and other places, but that's good. It's clear that the recent wildfire smoke incidents caused by these fires in the U.S. and Canada was a key motivator. Most buildings and their operators weren't well-prepared to make timely and effective responses. And to me, I would classify that as a failure of resilience.
We also had the example of lack of preparedness to respond to the arrival of the COVID-19 pandemic in early 2020, which was pretty much the same story. We had a problem emerge that was an IAQ problem and weren't really ready to deal with it. However, I want to also note, although this bill seems to be motivated by that, that poor indoor air quality is a chronic problem. We have decades of accumulated documentation of the poor condition of too many facilities, including the finding of that schools report that 41% of school districts need to repair or replace at least 50% of their HVAC systems.
Linda Rathke:
So Bryce, how did this bill come to fruition?
Bryce Causey:
Yes. I mean, so for those that don't know, Congressman Walkinshaw represents Virginia's Congressional 11th District, which has a huge federal worker population. So this is a bill that directly affects the congressman's constituents living and having working in these buildings for such a long time. The IAQ was a really, really big priority for his constituents. So his staffers had reached out to me wanting to do something around IAQ for federal buildings and wanted to make sure that they included ASHRAE IAQ standards to make sure that that's a part of this assessment. So this really was a priority for the congressman. He's a freshman member of Congress, so always trying to— usually when you're a freshman, you're trying to really hit the ground running and deliver very quickly for your constituents. So I think this is a really good bill in direct response to a lot of the things that we're seeing going on with our federal buildings and as it relates to the wildfires that we're seeing.
Unfortunately, the bill introduction kind of coincided with that wildfire smoke that came down from Canada. So it really ran home the point of the need for the bill. It wasn't planned that way, obviously. No one could have predicted that the fire was going to happen on the week of the introduction, but it kind of worked out that way and, I think, highlighted the need for members to solve this. And the other members on the bill, Beyer, Fitzpatrick, Tonko, these are other leaders in the IAQ space that we work with on other bills. Beyer has a tax credit bill for commercial buildings to improve IAQ. Tonko has IAQ for schools. And so all those bills cite ASHRAE standards as well. And so we work with these champions all the time on these critical issues. So this was definitely started from the congressman, and we worked together with him and some of the other unions and groups on the bill to really get this over the finish line introduced.
Linda Rathke:
Well, it sounds like it has a lot of support, a lot of momentum. What do you think, Bryce? How likely do you think this is that it'll become a law?
Bryce Causey:
Yeah. So as we know, everything in Congress is never super easy when coming to pass. I think given the short congressional calendar that we're running into this year and all of the major things that still need to be done like government funding and such, the likelihood of it passing this Congress, I think, is pretty low. It's an election year. Folks want to go home, do all of that. So is this bill a priority for them? Likely not. But I think this does set up an opportunity to build the work that's needed to socialize this bill around the other members of Congress, the committees of jurisdiction to build support for it. It is bipartisan, which is always good. That's the first step to getting a bill passed in Congress, making sure you have both sides agree to it. So that's good that we have a Democrat and Republican on this.
But I think a lot of this time right now can be spent educating stakeholder groups, maybe getting more support from organizations on this, and really building that support in Congress for this since it's looking like the calendar is just really short this year of what is left to get done. But a lot of times in cases like this, we're introducing messaging bill, but it'll build it up for next Congress. So this gives us an opportunity to, if there are edits or changes that potentially we want to look into to make the bill better next Congress or bring on other organizations to have a play in this, we can help do that. And so it's really a time to build the momentum, educate folks on the bill, get that support from relevant committees, and see what we can do to set this up for a better time next Congress because we're so many major things that Congress is dealing with right now.
The IAQ bill with federal buildings is definitely important, but ranking on the scale of things that they have to do, it's probably going to fall to the wayside. But I'm definitely from a government affairs perspective as a staffer, I'm definitely staying in contact with his staff and some of the other organizations that support this bill to see if there are any opportunities to get this included potentially in a government funding bill or an appropriation bill or something like that kind of last minute and see if there's room for that.
Linda Rathke:
Well, good. Sounds like there's more than one way—
Bryce Causey:
Yeah.
Linda Rathke:
—in to do this. So to that end, were there other avenues pursued before this legislation for achieving similar goals?
Bryce Causey:
Yeah. So a lot of times like this when you have—so this is what we call a study bill. And these are really, when it comes to Congress and trying to get things passed, these are one of the easier type of bills to get passed because it doesn't cost money. It's a study, a report. It's really easy for the agencies to do. So this is actually a really good step that a lot of members would take to bring more attention to an issue. And so he's a freshman member, so he hasn't had the chance to do something on this, but GAO reports on issues in federal buildings, I know there was one for Legionella, which is a big issue that GSA was working to address. So these type of bills to uncover, do oversight for our federal buildings are very common to achieve similar goals like this.
So this is definitely, I think, a very realistic bill that can certainly pass. And there are so many GAO reports that Congress wants to study on for different issues in this space, especially GSA since they handle all of our federal buildings and the oversight within them for our federal workers. So there's certainly a ton of other bills similar to this that have been pursued prior to this.
Linda Rathke:
Well, let me ask you this. And I know you're up against a calendar, of course, but has there been any political pushback?
Bryce Causey:
So no political pushback as of yet. I think given that it's a study bill and it doesn't require any funds right now, that is always good. And so that's the first thing that people are going to ask, how much it's going to cost, because that's when you start getting pushback from one side or the other. So I think that bodes very well for the legislation since it is a study or report that the agencies, the GAO has already funded to do those things. You just have to direct them to do it. So that bodes well for its passage. I can't see much political pushback on wanting to find out if our federal buildings are safe for our workers to breathe the air in, but we'll see maybe. It's towards the end of this Congress, so we'll see if maybe other organizations or other members of Congress come out against it later on. But as of right now, no.
But there's a lot of support for it. It's bipartisan, have Republican, Dem on. Typically, these type of oversight issues are pretty straightforward and supportive on both sides. We have a good breadth of support from SEOs like us, but we have the unions, the sheet metal, air, rare transportation workers smart. That's a really big union to have on you. On the other side, we have the contractors. So we have the contractors have the union. So we have a good coalition of outside groups, which is good. It's good to have because a lot of times when you have these bills, maybe it's just a ton of advocacy groups advocating for it, but you don't have the workers on it or it's the other side. So we have a good breadth of scientific technical folks like ASHRAE, but we have the unions on it as well who can speak to the workforce issues that we're seeing in the contracting and the qualifications, which they put a lot of input for that in the bill as well to make sure that we're also ensuring they're meeting the IAQ stuff.
But let's also make sure that the contractors that they're using to install and do oversight and maintenance are qualified as well. So this was really a holistic approach of creating this bill. And we have the American Federation of Government Employees, the actual government employees that work in these building, support the bill. So we have the folks in the buildings. We have the folks that create standards for the buildings and we have the folks that are actually in the building installing and doing oversight. So building that holistic support for it, I think, is really important for long term trying to get this bill across the line.
Linda Rathke:
Oh, for sure. For sure. Thanks, Bryce.
So Bill, back to you. What types of buildings would benefit the most if this legislation becomes a law?
Bill Bahnfleth:
Yeah. It's a very interesting question to ponder. And I think I want to turn around and say that it's all really about the people in the building. It's not the building that will benefit, it's the occupants. So it really comes down to who the population is. And one way that we look at this when we're trying to prioritize is where are the most vulnerable occupants to the consequences of a poor IAQ? Whether it's acute like the wildfires or chronic, like some of the other problems, who are the ones who would benefit the most? So any government-operated healthcare facility that might fall under this or an elder care facility would certainly be one place where we would find those sorts of sensitive individuals.
And also at the other end of the age spectrum, another place that we look are in schools and especially down at the daycare level. But on the other hand, we could also look at this from the point of view that the buildings that would benefit the most are the ones that are most poorly maintained regardless of what goes on in them. And certainly we would like this bill to lead ultimately to better IAQ for everyone. I think that's a couple of takes on it.
Linda Rathke:
Thank you. What parts of the bill are the most relevant, would you say, to HVAC engineers?
Bill Bahnfleth:
Well, I think the ones that would affect their jobs. I think a lot of the responsibility for identifying issues and determining how to remediate them is going to fall on engineers who are involved in design or commissioning or to some extent facility engineers, although we can't forget about the important role of the contractors and other trades in all of this. So I think that given that, the review of policies and standards will be something that is very relevant to HVAC engineers. And also, the documentation of the nature frequency and causes of problems is going to be of great interest.
Linda Rathke:
Oh yeah. I hadn't considered that part. So Bryce, could wording on the bill change significantly at all before any vote on this becomes law?
Bryce Causey:
Yeah, yeah, yeah. There's always that opportunity. I think you see a lot of bills in Congress, they get introduced as a messaging bill, and then it ends up getting watered down or changed a bid. Compromise language is included so that it has a better chance of passing. Given that this one is a pretty straightforward report, GAO report bill, I don't see it changing significantly, but who knows what a committee—this would go through the Transportation Infrastructure Committee. So maybe there's a member in that committee that wants to include language on water quality issues or something or energy efficiency or anything like that. Someone doesn't like one part of the reporting, maybe they want it to be six months instead of 12 months. So there's opportunities to reduce the bill, make it better, expand it more. And that's all a part of the sausage, how you make the sausage in Congress.
It's going to take introduce the bill. And then, the hard work is working with the committees of jurisdiction and the members and their staff to make sure that it's at a place that everyone can support because ideally you want it to pass out of committee unanimously so that it sets it up good when it's for the vote on the floor of the House that it's a pretty bipartisan. And so there's no major issues with it. So it sets it up good for passage. So there is definitely a chance for changes on the bill, but given that it's a straightforward GAO report, I wouldn't expect a lot.
And like I said before, since the congressional calendar is coming to a close relatively soon with the elections coming up and all the other major issues that Congress has on its plate, I see this definitely being introduced again next Congress. And the congressman might actually be on the committee of jurisdiction in that case. And that definitely increases its odds of passage when the member who introduces it is on it. And so I definitely think we'll see what it looks like next Congress if we can't get it passed this time, but I think it has a good chance of passage as is.
Linda Rathke:
Hmm. Well, I'll be staying tuned. So Bill, what might be some of the misconceptions about the bill?
Bill Bahnfleth:
Yeah, I think that the main one that comes to mind is that if this bill is enacted and if the report is done and the recommendations are issued and the remediation plans come back, the problems are going to be solved. As Bryce said, it's a study bill. It's not moving lots of money. If you look back a few years during the pandemic, we had the Elementary and Secondary Schools Emergency Relief bill that made $190 billion of funding available to address various issues in schools. Real change is going to require ongoing commitment to directing necessary resources to addressing the recommendations and probably also some policy changes.
But having said all of that, a strong GAO report would be a really significant first step in the right direction. Many know of my fondness for the motto, "Start where you are, use what you have, do what you can." I think we can accomplish a lot with what we already have in the realm of standards and technology. And the key is the will to act. So we're trying to set something in motion, I think, with this bill.
Linda Rathke:
Thank you. Thank you for that. So I think we're at the point where I'm going to ask you both for some closing thoughts. What do you guys think is the next step?
Bryce Causey:
Yeah. I think like Bill said, this is a very good first step, but money is definitely going to be a major issue, which is every agency is cash-strapped for money. I think that's a big issue that GSA has is underfunding of the growing backlog of maintenance issues for federal buildings just for regular repairs. But I'm sure IAQ, energy efficiency, other things fall under the wayside as things fall apart and things of that nature. So I think the GAO report sets a good picture of what needs to be done. And then, who knows, potentially through the appropriation process, they might give a little funding to this agency, that agency to do some work on IAQ or energy efficiency issues. May not be the whole holistic thing they need, but maybe you could work on a piecemeal strategy that appropriators might do it for this agency to do that or this specific building.
And so it definitely sets up an opportunity to at least lay the picture out of what's at stake and where the work needs to be done. I think overall, though, this definitely one speaks just to the importance of technical guidance that ASHRAE provides and across the SDO community that a lot of these members are Congressman or staff, they're not technical experts. A lot of them have a policy background. And so it's really important the work that we do to educate them and make sure they know they can reach out to us on bills like this so that they're making good legislation with sound scientific guidance. And I think that's a really important kind of takeaway that for the industry as well. They need this help, this guidance. So it's really good we can provide this so that they make the legislation the best it can be.
And so I think going forward, we're going to continue to engage with Walkinshaw's office on this. If we can't get it past this year, we'll engage the next Congress. And I'm sure there might be some things that we might want to add, especially on the workforce aspect. Our President, Sarah Maston is her new theme for this year on commissioning and retrofitting, maybe we could include that somewhere. Who knows? So there's definitely opportunities to build upon this, but I definitely see it as a good first step just to get the bill out there and educate folks, build more momentum and support around this and just build a strong coalition to get this over the finish line.
Linda Rathke:
Great. Great.
Bill Bahnfleth:
Yeah. The only thing I would add is to really endorse that point about getting the information out. And that means to everyone, to the public. I think a report that just goes back to the appropriate congressional committees, which I think is what the bill itself says has one level of impact. But I think when those messages get to the public and then they start to communicate with their representatives, then we have the chance to develop the momentum from the grassroots to do something really meaningful.
Linda Rathke:
Oh, for sure. Well, thank you both. I appreciate you both coming on here to share your time and your insights with us.
Bryce Causey:
Of course. Thank you.
Bill Bahnfleth:
Thank you very much. Enjoyed it.
Linda Rathke:
To our listeners, thank you for tuning in to this episode of ASHRAE Journal Podcast.
ASHRAE Journal:
The ASHRAE Journal podcast team is editor, Drew Champlin; managing editor, Linda Rathke; producer and associate editor, Allison Hambrick; assistant editor, Mary Sims; associate editor, Tani Palefski; technical editor, Rebecca Norris; and creative designer, Teresa Carboni.
Copyright ASHRAE. The views expressed in this podcast are those of individuals only and not of ASHRAE, its sponsors or advertisers. Please refer to ashrae.org/podcast for the full disclaimer.