Bill Overview
Title: Stopping Harmful Incidents to Enforce Lawful Drone Use Act
Description: SHIELD U Act This bill authorizes Counter-Unmanned Aircraft System (C-UAS) activities on and off commercial service airport property to detect, identify, and mitigate threats posed by an unmanned aircraft (i.e., drone) or unmanned aircraft system. It authorizes the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), state and local law enforcement, and airport law enforcement to carry out these activities. Additionally, the bill allows DHS and the Departments of Defense, Justice, and Energy to contract with other entities to carry out C-UAS activities. The bill also (1) expands the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center curriculum to include use of C-UAS authorities as well as the ability for state, local, tribal, and territorial law enforcement to attend such training; and (2) allows state, local, and airport law enforcement to use jamming technology to mitigate a drone threat.
Sponsors: Sen. Lee, Mike [R-UT]
Target Audience
Population: People engaged in activities involving drones
Estimated Size: 1100000
- The global drone market affects a wide array of stakeholders, including manufacturers, buyers, and users. As of 2023, approximately 30 million drones were sold globally, particularly for leisure, commercial, and governmental use.
- The legislation may affect current drone owners and potential buyers by imposing more regulations and enforcement activities to ensure legal drone usage.
- The professional drone sector includes segments such as surveillance, photography, agriculture, delivery, and infrastructure inspection, which will all potentially be impacted by this legislation.
- The legislation impacts populations in countries with existing drone legislation and those without such legislation in place. Many countries are expanding or establishing drone laws to manage risks and integrate drones into society.
- The manufacturing and technology market dealing with drones could also undergo changes as a result of this legislation, since it involves intervening in existing systems and possibly developing new ones.
Reasoning
- The policy directs resources toward mitigating risk and securing a safe environment for lawful drone applications. It involves multiple departments and offers a budget of $150,000,000 USD in the first year, expanding to over a billion in ten years. This means it has some potential to reshape the drone users' landscape significantly.
- Individuals involved in commercial drone programs such as farming, delivery, infrastructure management, and entertainment might experience noticeable impacts, while hobbyists could see low to moderate changes. Law enforcement will undergo training and might see shifts in their ability to engage drones in unauthorized operations.
- The budget is directed at both technology and human resources, but considering the scale of drone sales globally and in the USA, the policy is a small part of a larger governance and technological strategy. Approximately 1,100,000 people might be involved directly, which includes drone users and law enforcement agencies.
Simulated Interviews
Commercial Drone Photographer (New York, NY)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Regulation is fine, but if this act makes it harder for me to operate or increases costs unnecessarily, that could damage my business.
- Training and clarity in the law would be welcome to avoid unnecessary penalties.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Law Enforcement Officer (Denver, CO)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The use of drones for unlawful activities is a growing concern, so having more tools to handle such incidents could be beneficial.
- Proper training and budget allocation are crucial for this policy to be effective.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Software Developer for Drone Technology (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Innovation needs space to grow, and if regulation stifles that, it could have negative consequences on tech development.
- However, safety is important, and some oversight can be justified if it's properly executed.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Recreational Drone User (Miami, FL)
Age: 23 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I fly responsibly, so enforcement doesn't worry me too much, but I hope it doesn't make the hobby more expensive.
- It would be useful to have more knowledge about where and when flying is legal.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Farmer using drones for crop monitoring (Rural Kansas)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Drones have revolutionized how I monitor and manage my fields. Any new policy that complicates this could be problematic.
- However, I understand regulations are needed for safety.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Ethics Consultant for Technology Firms (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support this policy as long as it is implemented ethically, ensuring the rights of individuals and discouraging misuse by authorities.
- The focus should be on education and understanding alongside enforcement.
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 |
Retired Aviation Engineer and Hobbyist (Boise, ID)
Age: 67 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 20/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a hobbyist, I enjoy flying my drones and worry about overbearing restrictions.
- Dialogue between drone enthusiasts and regulators is essential to avoid hampering the community.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Drone Delivery Service Coordinator (Seattle, WA)
Age: 31 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Efficient regulation can pave the way for innovation and public acceptance of new technologies like drone delivery.
- The policy should support technological advancements while ensuring public safety.
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 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 9 |
Energy Sector Analyst uses drones for inspection (Houston, TX)
Age: 36 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Drones are crucial in my work for ensuring safety and precision. This act shouldn't lead to operational bottlenecks.
- We need clarity on permissible usage in the energy sector.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Academic Researcher in Aviation Safety (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Research shows potential hazards with unregulated drones, so I see this legislation as a positive step.
- It's crucial to balance safety and innovation within the drone industry.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 9 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $150000000 (Low: $120000000, High: $180000000)
Year 2: $130000000 (Low: $110000000, High: $160000000)
Year 3: $120000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $140000000)
Year 5: $100000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $120000000)
Year 10: $90000000 (Low: $70000000, High: $110000000)
Year 100: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Key Considerations
- Implementation complexity and cost for adapting new C-UAS technologies in existing infrastructure.
- Potential privacy concerns from increased surveillance and jamming activities.
- Economic implications for the drone industry, including impacts on innovation and market growth.