Bill Overview
Title: Drone Infrastructure Inspection Grant Act
Description: This bill establishes programs within the Department of Transportation (DOT) to support the use of drones and other small, unmanned aircraft systems when inspecting, repairing, or constructing road infrastructure, electric grid infrastructure, water infrastructure, or other critical infrastructure. Specifically, DOT must award grants to state, tribal, and local governments; metropolitan planning organizations; or groups of those entities to purchase or otherwise use drones to increase efficiency, reduce costs, improve worker and community safety, reduce carbon emissions, or meet other priorities when carrying out inspections, repairs, and construction. Grant recipients must use domestically manufactured drones that are made by companies not subject to influence or control from certain foreign entities, including China and Russia. DOT must also award grants to certain institutions of higher education for training students for careers using drones and related technologies.
Sponsors: Sen. Rosen, Jacky [D-NV]
Target Audience
Population: People involved in infrastructure operations, drone technology, and directly affected communities
Estimated Size: 20000000
- The bill focuses on using drones for inspecting and repairing infrastructure, which means infrastructure operators will be directly impacted.
- Grant recipients will include state, tribal, and local governments, impacting the workforce involved in public infrastructure operations.
- Professionals in the drone industry will see an increase in demand, directly impacting the manufacturers of drones and related technologies.
- The focus on domestic production will impact American companies that manufacture drones.
- The emphasis on infrastructure impacts means communities where the infrastructure is upgraded will experience indirect effects, such as improved safety and efficiency.
- Institutions of higher education receiving grants will be responsible for training new students, impacting those entering the workforce with skills in drone technology and inspections.
Reasoning
- The policy has a direct impact on individuals involved in infrastructure operations like engineers or maintenance crews as they will use the new drone technology. The policy emphasizes reducing costs and improving safety, suggesting positive feedback from these groups.
- Drone manufacturers and technology workers are directly impacted as domestic production is required, increasing business and potentially creating more jobs.
- Students obtaining education grants will benefit by receiving training for growing careers in drone operations, impacting their future job prospects and wellbeing.
- Since the policy affects critical infrastructure inspections and repairs, communities with improved safety and efficiency will see indirect benefits, potentially improving the overall quality of life.
- The budget constraints limit the number of projects and grants, so the impact might be concentrated in specific areas or states initially.
Simulated Interviews
Civil Engineer (Phoenix, Arizona)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm hopeful that using drones will make road inspections faster and safer; fewer people need to be physically in hazardous areas.
- Cutting costs with drones might help our department allocate funds to other necessary projects.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Drone Manufacturer (Detroit, Michigan)
Age: 37 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This initiative could boost our business significantly since we focus on the types of drones needed.
- With restrictions on foreign-made drones, we have a competitive edge.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Drone Pilot Trainer (Denver, Colorado)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The grants for educational institutions will allow us to expand our programs.
- More students are expected to enroll, increasing job security for trainers like me.
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 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Electrician (Rural Arkansas)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm curious but hesitant about drone usage; part of me is worried it could replace some jobs.
- Efficiency and safety improvements could be beneficial to all of us working on grid maintenance.
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 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Student (Boston, Massachusetts)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The scholarship allows me to pursue a career in a growing field.
- Knowing there's industry support for drones makes me feel confident about job prospects.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Municipal Government Worker (Los Angeles, California)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm optimistic about the potential cost savings and safety benefits from using drones in projects.
- Budget constraints mean we have to prove efficiency gains quickly.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Water Infrastructure Analyst (Houston, Texas)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could allow us to scan infrastructures more frequently and effectively.
- I'm looking forward to collaborating with new drone companies.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Environmental Researcher (New York, New York)
Age: 33 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Reducing emissions via drone technology is a step in the right direction.
- It’s crucial that implementation occurs with environmentally friendly practices in mind.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Community Organizer (Miami, Florida)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm interested in seeing how drone technology affects community safety and engagement.
- I worry about equitable implementation across all communities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Construction Manager (Chicago, Illinois)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I’m glad to see infrastructure getting improvements, drones should speed up some of our work.
- I hope the technology is user-friendly and doesn't require too much retraining time.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $75000000 (Low: $60000000, High: $90000000)
Year 2: $70000000 (Low: $55000000, High: $85000000)
Year 3: $70000000 (Low: $55000000, High: $85000000)
Year 5: $65000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $80000000)
Year 10: $60000000 (Low: $45000000, High: $75000000)
Year 100: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)
Key Considerations
- The requirement to use domestically manufactured drones could be a cost driver due to higher domestic production costs.
- Training programs will be crucial to ensure the workforce is prepared to leverage drone technology effectively.
- Long-term cost savings depend on the successful implementation and use of drones in infrastructure operations.