Policy Impact Analysis - 117/HR/8808

Bill Overview

Title: COBALT Act of 2022

Description: This bill provides funding through the Defense Production Act Fund to increase stocks of domestically refined cobalt in the National Defense Stockpile. (The Defense Production Act of 1950 confers on the President a broad set of authorities to influence domestic industry in order to provide essential materials and goods needed for the national defense.)

Sponsors: Rep. Donalds, Byron [R-FL-19]

Target Audience

Population: People reliant on technology and electronics production sectors

Estimated Size: 3500000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Electric Vehicle Battery Engineer (California)

Age: 35 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy could solidify cobalt supplies for our batteries, making production more predictable.
  • If successful, it may reduce costs and foster stability in the supply chain.

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 9 6
Year 10 9 5
Year 20 9 5

Electronics Supply Chain Manager (New Jersey)

Age: 42 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • With more domestic cobalt production, we might see a less volatile supply chain.
  • This could ease some of our logistical burdens and over-reliance on international supplies.

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 6
Year 10 8 5
Year 20 7 5

Consumer Electronics Analyst (Texas)

Age: 50 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 2/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This initiative might slightly lower the volatility in electronics pricing over time.
  • Domestic cobalt could align with broader market hopes from smaller-scale disruptions.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 8
Year 2 8 8
Year 3 8 7
Year 5 8 7
Year 10 8 6
Year 20 7 5

Tech Consumer (Ohio)

Age: 29 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I hope this makes tech more sustainable, perhaps lowering costs too.
  • However, I'm skeptical of how quickly any changes will reach consumers.

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 6
Year 10 6 5
Year 20 6 5

Automotive R&D Specialist (Michigan)

Age: 40 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 15.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This will allow our R&D to progress without as much concern for supply volatility.
  • It could encourage domestic innovation with reliable raw material supplies.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 7 5
Year 3 7 5
Year 5 8 5
Year 10 8 4
Year 20 8 4

Start-up Founder in Renewable Energy (New York)

Age: 23 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 2/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This could signal a positive shift for sustainable tech ventures if it stabilizes the supply chain.
  • I'm optimistic that it aligns with broader sustainability goals.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 8
Year 2 8 7
Year 3 9 7
Year 5 9 7
Year 10 9 6
Year 20 8 5

Battery Factory Worker (Missouri)

Age: 38 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Hopefully, this policy means job security and factory expansions here.
  • We've had times when raw materials have halted our work for weeks.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 5
Year 2 6 5
Year 3 7 5
Year 5 7 5
Year 10 8 4
Year 20 8 4

Environmental Activist (Oregon)

Age: 34 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 1/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • While I'm concerned about the environmental implications of more mining, domestic refining might be more controlled.
  • This could be good if managed sustainably. The details matter.

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 5
Year 10 7 5
Year 20 6 5

Electric Vehicle Sales Manager (Alabama)

Age: 45 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 15.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • If this policy can help lower battery costs, it could benefit sales and market growth.
  • Policy measures that stabilize supply could boost consumer confidence.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 8 7
Year 3 8 6
Year 5 8 6
Year 10 9 5
Year 20 8 5

Retired Electronics Manufacturer (Illinois)

Age: 60 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • From experience, stable material supply could mean frequent innovation and production growth.
  • It's a positive step given historical dependencies and shortages.

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 6
Year 20 8 6

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)

Year 2: $45000000 (Low: $35000000, High: $55000000)

Year 3: $40000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $50000000)

Year 5: $35000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $45000000)

Year 10: $30000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $40000000)

Year 100: $30000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $40000000)

Key Considerations