Bill Overview
Title: A bill to establish a critical mineral environmental processing and mining cleanup program, and for other purposes.
Description: This bill requires the Department of Energy to award competitive grants for costs associated with environmental assessment, processing, mitigation, and cleanup related to domestically mining and manufacturing certain critical minerals, such as those needed for energy independence.
Sponsors: Sen. Wyden, Ron [D-OR]
Target Audience
Population: People affected by critical mineral cleanup and processing
Estimated Size: 1000000
- The bill impacts individuals working in the mining and mineral processing industry because it addresses cleanup and environmental processing related to critical minerals.
- Communities located near mining operations will be affected due to potential environmental changes and cleanup efforts.
- Consumers of products made from these critical minerals may also be affected as the bill could influence the supply and cost of these minerals.
- Environmental professionals and workers in cleanup operations will be impacted as the demand for their expertise may increase.
Reasoning
- The simulation focuses on a diverse group within the US. The key stakeholders include those working in mining operations and adjacent communities. Others indirectly affected include environmental professionals, consumers of mineral-based goods, and employees from related industries.
- The cost and program size constraints were considered by choosing participants from both directly affected and peripheral groups. Some individuals are not affected by the policy, ensuring the simulation provides a balanced view.
Simulated Interviews
Mining Engineer (Nevada)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy will bring necessary funds for better environmental practices at our site.
- Improved regulations are needed, but I hope it doesn't add too many operational costs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Environmental Scientist (Pennsylvania)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy will increase job security and provide opportunities for our field.
- More projects help us clean and sustain environmental health around mining areas.
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 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Community Activist (West Virginia)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We suffer from mining waste, and this policy could finally bring some cleanup efforts.
- I've been advocating for environmental accountability for years.
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 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Technology Entrepreneur (California)
Age: 43 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Ensuring a stable supply of critical minerals is crucial for our business.
- Environmental efforts should be balanced with industry needs.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Logistics Manager (Texas)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Changes in mining operations potentially affect our logistics planning.
- Policy might indirectly impact product supply and costs.
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 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Small Business Owner (Arizona)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The increased focus on cleanup might shift focus from new exploration, affecting business.
- I hope the policy leads to more sustainable operations that also consider local businesses.
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 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Graduate Student (Colorado)
Age: 27 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy provides more real-world case studies for my research.
- I'm hopeful about the positive environmental impact.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Factory Worker (Ohio)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our plant depends on a steady supply of minerals; hoping policy enhances reliability.
- Concerned about potential cost increases.
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 | 6 | 5 |
Regulation Analyst (New Mexico)
Age: 42 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policies like this increase demand for compliance services.
- Expect more intensive regulatory landscapes going forward.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Healthcare Worker (Montana)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this policy brings cleaner air and water to our community soon.
- Concerns about health impacts have been ongoing for years.
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 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $1000000000 (Low: $800000000, High: $1300000000)
Year 2: $1000000000 (Low: $800000000, High: $1300000000)
Year 3: $1000000000 (Low: $800000000, High: $1300000000)
Year 5: $1000000000 (Low: $800000000, High: $1300000000)
Year 10: $1000000000 (Low: $800000000, High: $1300000000)
Year 100: $1000000000 (Low: $800000000, High: $1300000000)
Key Considerations
- The variability of site-specific cleanup operations could lead to cost fluctuations.
- Interagency coordination requirements could also add layers of complexity and cost.
- Long-term potential for increased economic competitiveness in critical mineral markets.
- Environmental and regulatory compliance costs are a significant factor in overall program costs.