Bill Overview
Title: Clean Energy Minerals Reform Act of 2022
Description: This bill addresses mineral leasing, exploration, and development on federal land. For example, the bill prohibits the issuance of a patent for certain mining or millsite claims; establishes a permitting and leasing system for hardrock mining; establishes a 12.5% royalty on new mining operations and an 8% royalty on existing operations, with an exemption for small miners; protects special places, such as wilderness study areas, roadless areas, and wild and scenic rivers, from hardrock mining activity; requires consultation prior to undertaking any mineral activities that may have a substantial direct impact on the lands or interests of Indian tribes; establishes an environmental standard for mining activities to ensure that mining activities prevent undue degradation of public lands and resources; prescribes requirements for the exploration permit process and for operations permits, including financial assurances; and authorizes the Hardrock Minerals Reclamation Fund to be used for responding to hazardous substance releases on abandoned hardrock mine land, including efforts to reclaim the land.
Sponsors: Rep. Grijalva, Raúl M. [D-AZ-3]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals reliant on or impacted by hardrock mineral mining
Estimated Size: 1000000
- Hardrock mining is a global industry that provides materials essential for clean energy technology, electronics, construction, and automobile sectors, among others.
- The bill applies specifically to federal lands in the United States, but similar legislative models might be adopted globally.
- Environmental protections and royalties might encourage more sustainable practices in global mining sectors if similar policies are considered in other countries.
Reasoning
- The policy will predominantly impact individuals and communities involved in or reliant on the mining sector. This includes miners, mining company employees, and communities near federal mining sites.
- Issues such as job security, environmental impact, and tribal land rights will be important considerations.
- Given the policy's focus on U.S. federal lands, direct impacts will be on domestic mining operations, though indirect effects may ripple through associated industries and global sectors that deal with minerals sourced from U.S. mines.
- The policy includes royalty increases and new financial assurances which might affect both large mining companies and small, independent miners differently.
- Environmentalists and those prioritizing tribal land protection may view this policy positively due to its emphasis on land and resource safeguarding.
- Budget limitations may restrict the scale of enforcement and reclamation efforts that can be undertaken, possibly limiting the policy's effectiveness in certain areas or delaying full implementation.
Simulated Interviews
Mining Engineer (Nevada)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The new royalties might increase production costs, which could impact my job security longer term.
- I appreciate the focus on environmental standards, but I hope it doesn't lead to overly burdensome regulations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 5 |
Environmental Scientist (Arizona)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm thrilled about the protection it offers to special areas and the environmental standards it enforces.
- It's a big step forward in balancing mineral extraction with environmental preservation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Tribal Leader (Idaho)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is crucial in ensuring our voices are heard in decisions affecting our lands.
- The consultation requirement acknowledges the cultural significance of our lands.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Small Mining Operator (Minnesota)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm relieved that small miners are exempt from the new royalty structure, but I still worry about any operational cost increases.
- There needs to be more clarity on what constitutes a 'small' miner.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Retired Geologist (California)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's time policies prioritize environmental sustainability over pure economic gain.
- Hope this acts as a precedent for further reforms.
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 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Logistics Coordinator (Missouri)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry about potential industry impacts slowing supply chains and affecting our workload.
- Balancing environmental and economic interests is important, but it needs to be fast and fair.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Federal Land Manager (Colorado)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's good to see comprehensive regulations being put forth; they are necessary for sustainable federal land use.
- Implementation and enforcement will be key to success.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Machine Operator (West Virginia)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The new policy might introduce some instability, but it could also create new opportunities in equipment for more eco-friendly mining.
- It's a mixed bag—concern for job security but hopeful for industry adaptation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Graduate Student in Environmental Policy (Montana)
Age: 25 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Encouraging to see attention towards reforming mining policies to include sustainability measures.
- Eager to see how it changes industry practices and public land management.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Community Health Worker (New Mexico)
Age: 48 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm hopeful this could improve community health by reducing pollution and contamination.
- There are worries whether the policy will be enforced effectively enough to make noticeable changes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $350000000 (Low: $300000000, High: $400000000)
Year 2: $360000000 (Low: $310000000, High: $410000000)
Year 3: $370000000 (Low: $320000000, High: $420000000)
Year 5: $390000000 (Low: $340000000, High: $440000000)
Year 10: $420000000 (Low: $370000000, High: $470000000)
Year 100: $700000000 (Low: $650000000, High: $750000000)
Key Considerations
- The impact on small miners due to royalty exemptions, and how this shapes industry reactions.
- Long-term environmental benefits versus short-term economic impacts on the mining industry.
- Impact on tribal lands and required consultations with tribes.
- Administrative and operational costs associated with implementing new regulatory and enforcement mechanisms.