Bill Overview
Title: Clean Energy Minerals Reform Act of 2022
Description: This bill modifies requirements related to the mining of hardrock minerals on federal land. For example, the bill prohibits the United States from issuing a patent for any mining claim, millsite, or tunnel site unless a patent application was filed with the Department of the Interior by September 30, 1994; subjects production of all locatable minerals from any mining claim to a reasonable royalty established by Interior; requires an exploration permit and mining operations permit for non-casual mining operations; establishes the Hardrock Minerals Reclamation Fund for responding to hazardous substance releases on abandoned hardrock mine land; requires consultation with Indian tribes prior to the undertaking or issuing of a permit for mineral activity that has tribal implications; and establishes civil penalties for violation of surface management or operation requirements and related regulations.
Sponsors: Sen. Heinrich, Martin [D-NM]
Target Audience
Population: people involved in or impacted by hardrock mineral mining on federal lands and surrounding communities
Estimated Size: 10000000
- The bill primarily targets the mining industry involved in extracting hardrock minerals on federal lands, which includes companies and their employees.
- The establishment of royalties will impact the financial operations of these companies, possibly affecting their workforce.
- The bill affects communities near mining operations, especially those in proximity to federal lands.
- Environmental and tribal groups will be impacted due to the provisions for consultation with tribes and reclamation efforts.
- The U.S. federal government and related agencies will need to implement and enforce the bill.
- Royalties and penalties might indirectly affect the consumers of products made with these minerals, due to potential increases in production costs.
- The bill establishes further financial and operational requirements for mining companies which might impact their investment and operational decisions globally.
Reasoning
- The Clean Energy Minerals Reform Act targets the mining industry, primarily on federal lands. This includes mining companies, their employees, and communities near these operations. Additionally, the policy impacts Native American tribes due to required consultations, and has a financial implication for the U.S. federal government which must oversee and manage these changes.
- The policy's introduction of royalties and penalties potentially increases operational costs, impacting company profits and possibly resulting in workforce reductions or wage stagnation. This, in turn, affects the economic wellbeing of those employed by or reliant on the mining industry.
- Communities and individuals near mining sites may experience improved environmental conditions over time due to the reclamation efforts funded by the bill. This can enhance local wellbeing by reducing pollution and associated health risks.
- Tribal communities are expected to gain some voice in mining operations through mandatory consultations, which could empower these communities and potentially prevent harmful activities on their lands.
- The bill's economic impacts could extend to consumers due to increased mineral costs, possibly leading to higher prices for goods relying on hardrock minerals, over time affecting consumer purchasing power and welfare.
Simulated Interviews
Mine worker (Nevada)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm not too excited about these new rules. My company says the royalties could cut into their profits, and I worry this might mean job cuts or less overtime for us workers.
- But if these changes mean less environmental damage, maybe that's good for the future. We want our kids to grow up healthy here.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Tribal community liaison (Arizona)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our tribe welcomes the consultation requirement. We've seen too many operations proceed without considering our sacred lands.
- This could be a crucial step for us in preserving our heritage and having more say on activities affecting our land.
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 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Environmental scientist (Colorado)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm thrilled about the Reclamation Fund. We've been advocating for resources to deal with the toxic sites left from previous mining operations.
- Though it's tough on the companies, it's about time to make sure they handle their impact better.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Mining company analyst (Montana)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Introducing more royalties could hurt our global competitiveness. It might deter investments which are crucial for future ventures.
- I'm worried about how this could impact our local economy as our company might reevaluate its current US-based projects.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Retired miner (Utah)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- For years, we've dealt with the mess left by past mining. I'm hopeful about this fund for cleanup.
- Maybe we can finally live without worrying about the water and air quality affecting our health.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Local government official (New Mexico)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Community wellbeing might improve if mining companies take environmental responsibilities seriously.
- Yet, there's concern about job security for locals who rely on these companies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Renewable energy startup employee (Oregon)
Age: 25 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As someone involved in battery tech, I'm concerned about how royalties might affect the cost of minerals.
- But I'm all for sustainable mining practices if they ensure steady and responsibly sourced minerals.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Energy economist (South Dakota)
Age: 55 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The statutory shift towards sustainability is promising. Immediate costs may be higher, but long term benefits for our environment and economy are crucial.
- I see this motivating a shift towards more sustainable mining operations and technology.
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 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Corporate executive in mining company (Wyoming)
Age: 41 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This will drive us to enhance our sustainability efforts, which could be beneficial long term.
- My concern is how we manage added costs without adverse effects on our workforce or product pricing.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Small business owner (Idaho)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- These changes might slow down mining operations, and that affects us as suppliers.
- While we support better practices, we fear losing business to international competitors not bound by these rules.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $25000000)
Year 2: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $25000000)
Year 3: $20000000 (Low: $16000000, High: $25000000)
Year 5: $22000000 (Low: $17000000, High: $27000000)
Year 10: $24000000 (Low: $19000000, High: $31000000)
Year 100: $36000000 (Low: $29000000, High: $46000000)
Key Considerations
- The transition to the policy's requirements may temporarily disincentivize domestic mining venture motivations.
- Long-term environmental, public health, and economic benefits of improved land management and reclamation.
- Impact on federal revenue streams through implemented royalties and fines.
- The dynamic between mining regulations and energy production costs or availability, which could affect related industries.