Bill Overview
Title: Domestic USA Act
Description: This bill requires the inclusion of uranium on a list of mineral commodities that are critical to the U.S. economy and national security.
Sponsors: Rep. Lesko, Debbie [R-AZ-8]
Target Audience
Population: People involved in or affected by the uranium and nuclear power industry
Estimated Size: 1500000
- Uranium is primarily used in the energy sector, specifically for nuclear power generation.
- The bill could impact mining companies involved in uranium extraction in the U.S.
- Workers in the nuclear energy sector, including engineers, technicians, and administrative staff, could be affected by changes in uranium sourcing.
- Communities located near uranium mining sites might see economic or environmental impacts.
- Nuclear power consumers could face changes in energy prices or supply stability due to shifts in uranium sourcing.
- The global uranium market might be affected as U.S. shifts its procurement policies, influencing international suppliers.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily affects the nuclear energy sector and those involved in uranium mining. Initially, the policy could lead to renewed interest and investment in local uranium mining, benefiting companies and workers but possibly raising environmental concerns in mining areas.
- Communities near mining operations could experience both positive economic impacts and potential environmental challenges.
- The policy might stabilize or reduce energy prices for nuclear power consumers if domestic uranium lowers costs or mitigates supply risks.
- The effects on people indirectly connected to the nuclear industry, such as suppliers and administrative workers, could be less pronounced but still significant.
- The budget constraints suggest that although the policy ambition is broad, the actual reach may be limited initially, emphasizing impact on directly involved sectors.
Simulated Interviews
Uranium Mining Engineer (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see great job security due to the increased demand for uranium.
- There might be more scrutiny on environmental practices, which we are preparing for.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Nuclear Power Plant Technician (Richland, WA)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy brings reassurance about our plant's uranium supply chain security.
- I'm hopeful energy costs might stabilize or drop.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Environmental Activist (Nashville, TN)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might lead to increased uranium mining, which could harm local ecosystems.
- I'll be monitoring and advocating for stronger regulations to protect the environment.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 2 | 4 |
Utility Company Executive (Pittsburgh, PA)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy enhances our energy security by securing uranium supply.
- This may allow for more strategic investments in nuclear power.
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 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Retired Teacher (Santa Fe, NM)
Age: 62 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried about the mining site's environmental and health implications.
- Local economic benefits may help the community.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 2 | 4 |
Nuclear Physicist (Los Alamos, NM)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could lead to more research funding in nuclear security and energy sectors.
- It aligns with my interest in securing domestic energy resources.
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 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Nuclear Energy Consumer Advocate (Dallas, TX)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might help stabilize or lower nuclear energy costs.
- I'm optimistic about more domestic energy initiatives.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Wind Energy Specialist (Salt Lake City, UT)
Age: 30 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Encouraging domestic uranium contradicts greener energy goals.
- I'm more in favor of renewable energy incentives.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 4 |
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Employee (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 47 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy will likely increase our workload but reinforce nuclear safety standards.
- It demands balanced development against regulatory requirements.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Environmental Engineer (Salt Lake City, UT)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I will likely see more contracts assessing environmental impacts of new uranium projects due to policy.
- My work is essential to ensure environmental considerations are addressed.
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 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $200000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $250000000)
Year 2: $200000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $250000000)
Year 3: $200000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $250000000)
Year 5: $200000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $250000000)
Year 10: $200000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $250000000)
Year 100: $200000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $250000000)
Key Considerations
- Geopolitical tensions may require urgent increases in uranium reserves, influencing costs.
- Environmental impact assessments and potential cleanup costs can significantly alter budget requirements.
- Fluctuations in global uranium prices pose financial risks and opportunities.