Bill Overview
Title: Critical Mineral Independence Act of 2022
Description: This bill requires the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment and the Defense Logistics Agency to develop and implement a strategy to transition the supply chain for critical minerals in the National Defense Stockpile away from reliance on geostrategic competitors and adversaries by 2027 through acquisition of critical minerals processed by the United States or allied countries.
Sponsors: Sen. Romney, Mitt [R-UT]
Target Audience
Population: People reliant on industries using critical minerals
Estimated Size: 100000000
- The bill focuses on critical minerals which are essential for various industries including electronics, defense, automotive, and renewable energy.
- The supply chain transition will primarily impact industries that rely on these critical minerals for manufacturing and production.
- The transition could impact global miners and suppliers of critical minerals if they are currently geostrategic competitors or adversaries of the US.
- The strategy aims to benefit the economic and supply chain security of the US and allied nations by reducing dependence on adversarial sources.
Reasoning
- The policy targets a specific population subset primarily in industries such as defense, electronics, automotive, and renewable energy.
- Only a fraction of the US population would be directly impacted, mainly those working in sectors related to or dependent on critical minerals.
- The budget constraints suggest the policy would focus on strategic investments and collaborations, impacting industry supply chains rather than individual households directly.
- Some people in regions with mining or manufacturing related to these sectors might experience changes in employment or industry practices.
- The direct impact in terms of wellbeing might be more pronounced for employees in sectors like mining, defense contracting, or manufacturing dependent on critical minerals.
- The policy might indirectly affect consumers of products dependent on critical minerals through price or availability changes, but this would likely be a secondary effect.
Simulated Interviews
Defense Contractor Manager (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy is critical for national security. We can't rely on adversaries for materials we need to defend ourselves.
- I believe the policy will bring job security as our projects will shift to local and allied resources.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Automotive Engineer (Detroit, MI)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Shifting supply chains away from certain countries is expected; however, it's critical we maintain quality and innovations.
- The transition might slow down some projects initially but should be beneficial in the long-term.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Mining Operations Technician (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could lead to expansion and more job opportunities if we are chosen as part of the new supply chain.
- There's uncertainty about how quickly we can scale up to meet demand.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Electronics Retailer CEO (New York, NY)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might increase costs if supplier countries change leading to higher retail prices.
- We'll need to adjust our procurement strategies and might pass costs to consumers.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Renewable Energy Consultant (Austin, TX)
Age: 40 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Aligning with allied supply sources will ensure less disruption in the long term, which is good for renewables.
- There might be initial logistical challenges and price adjustments as we adapt.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Tech Startup Founder (San Jose, CA)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We rely on Asian manufacturers for components. Transition could initially affect our product timelines.
- Long-term benefits may include more stable supply chains, but cost adjustments will be necessary.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Oil and Gas Industry Executive (Houston, TX)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Not directly impacted but supportive of policy for national security reasons.
- Potential increases in costs were offset by savings on imports if domestic supply increases.
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 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Retired (Rural Montana)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 19/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't see how this policy affects me directly, but secure supply chains benefit everyone in subtle ways.
- Hopefully, it leads to more job opportunities for younger generations.
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 |
Import/Export Agent (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 12.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Transitioning suppliers can increase complexity and delay processes, impacting profits temporarily.
- Long-term benefits include less geopolitical risk.
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 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Environmental Scientist (Charleston, SC)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policies like these that shift focus to allied countries could exacerbate global environmental issues if not managed sustainably.
- Environmental regulations combined with supply chain changes could have a significant positive impact.
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 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $80000000 (Low: $60000000, High: $100000000)
Year 2: $85000000 (Low: $65000000, High: $105000000)
Year 3: $90000000 (Low: $70000000, High: $110000000)
Year 5: $95000000 (Low: $75000000, High: $115000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The implementation timeline until 2027 is crucial to evaluate cost phasing and impact.
- Geopolitical factors might influence the availability and cost of switching to allied sources for critical minerals.
- The environmental impacts of increased domestic mining activity should be assessed against policy goals.
- Static estimates may evolve with advancements in technology and varying global market conditions.