Bill Overview
Title: Critical Materials Processing Technology Testbed Act
Description: This bill requires the Department of Energy to establish testbed capability for researching, developing, and demonstrating technologies for processing critical materials, including feedstock materials. (Testbeds are platforms or facilities that allow for rigorous, transparent, and replicable testing of theories, tools, and technologies.)
Sponsors: Rep. Foster, Bill [D-IL-11]
Target Audience
Population: People dependent on industries using critical materials
Estimated Size: 300000000
- The bill involves the processing of critical materials, which are often used in manufacturing, energy, and technology sectors.
- Critical materials are crucial for national security and technological development, impacting industries and consumers globally.
- Testbeds for research and development in this area could enhance global technological capabilities.
- Critical materials have applications in various high-tech devices, including electronics, batteries, and renewable energy systems, affecting a wide user base across the globe.
Reasoning
- The budget constraints and the estimated American target population provide context for evaluating both the direct and indirect effects of the policy. Given the high dependency of US industries on critical materials, individuals closely linked to these sectors are most likely to experience noticeable impacts.
- The diversity of occupations and locations sampled reflects the widespread relevance of critical materials across various American industries.
- The limited role that budget constraints might play in affecting only a fraction of the estimated population highlights the need for selective implementation focused on strategic centers of innovation and high-demand areas.
- The perception of the policy varies with proximity to the industries most affected, indicating that workers within these sectors foresee direct job security and advancement opportunities, whereas others might perceive indirect benefits or no impact.
Simulated Interviews
Tech Company Engineer (San Jose, CA)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could stabilize supply chains, which is crucial for our production.
- Testbeds would advance technology development, keeping our field competitive.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Automotive Industry Executive (Dallas, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Critical material access is essential for our innovations in EV technology.
- This policy could significantly reduce costs and improve our product design timelines.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
Renewable Energy Researcher (Raleigh, NC)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This testbed could advance solar technology efficiencies, making renewables more viable.
- I hope it includes environmental impact assessments for all processes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Factory Worker (Detroit, MI)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- New innovations could secure factory demand and thus my job.
- I'm concerned about the pace of change and whether I'll be trained.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Minerals Supply Chain Analyst (Denver, CO)
Age: 38 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Stabilizing the supply chain could lead to more predictable markets.
- Research innovations might streamline sourcing but not immediately affect me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Retired Steelworker (Pittsburgh, PA)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's uncertain how new technologies will affect retired workers like me.
- I see potential benefits for my grandchildren's employment opportunities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Battery Technology Developer (Seattle, WA)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could spearhead greener battery tech lines.
- I hope sustainability remains a key focus of the testbeds.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
Environmental Advocate (Boston, MA)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While tech advancements are good, environmental considerations must guide them.
- I'm hopeful but wary this could lead to unquestioned support for extraction projects.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Oil and Gas Industry Consultant (Houston, TX)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Testbeds could navigate energy-tech hybrid models effectively.
- I advise caution in not over-relying on just tech fixations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Investment Analyst (New York, NY)
Age: 48 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 12.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Stability in critical materials benefits tech investment portfolios.
- This policy might offer significant growth pathways in tech sectors.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $200000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $250000000)
Year 2: $205000000 (Low: $155000000, High: $255000000)
Year 3: $210000000 (Low: $160000000, High: $260000000)
Year 5: $220000000 (Low: $170000000, High: $270000000)
Year 10: $230000000 (Low: $180000000, High: $280000000)
Year 100: $250000000 (Low: $200000000, High: $300000000)
Key Considerations
- The need to develop a resilient supply chain for critical materials within the U.S. to reduce geopolitical risks.
- Opportunities to partner with private sectors and international allies to accelerate technology development.
- Potential environmental regulations impacting the establishment of processing facilities.
- Balancing between immediate costs and long-term national benefits in energy and technology sectors.