Critical Minerals in Electric Vehicle Batteries

August 29, 2022 R47227

Critical Minerals in Electric Vehicle Batteries
August 29, 2022
Expected growth of electric vehicle (EV) sales has led to concern about securing mineral inputs
used in EV batteries. Various countries and companies have stated policies to accelerate the
Brandon S. Tracy
adoption of EVs in the transportation sector. Such public and private commitments suggest that
Analyst in Energy Policy
EV sales could continue into the expected future, with some estimates indicating 200 million

total EVs sold by 2030. More than 16 million total EVs have been sold worldwide, with about
6.6 million EVs sold in 2021. The U.S. EV market is small when compared to those in China and

Europe: new U.S. EV registrations were slightly less than 10% of new global EV registrations in
2021, while registrations in China were 50% of the global total and European registrations were 35%.
As the majority of EV manufacturing and sales occur outside the United States, so does the majority of EV battery
production. While China accounts for over 70% of global EV battery production capacity, the United States has developed
battery supply chains for some of its demand. China’s dominance in EV battery manufacturing is similar to its dominance in
mining and extraction of the minerals used in EV batteries. The potential for an accelerating global transition to EVs leads
some to question the domestic availability of the minerals and materials for the domestic manufacture of EV batteries.
Currently, lithium-ion batteries are the dominant type of rechargeable batteries used in EVs. The most commonly used
varieties are lithium cobalt oxide (LCO), lithium manganese oxide (LMO), lithium iron phosphate (LFP), lithium nickel
cobalt aluminum oxide (NCA) and lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide (NMC). Graphite is currently widely used as the
anode in lithium-ion batteries. These EV battery chemistries depend on five critical minerals whose domestic supply is
potentially at risk for disruption: lithium, cobalt, manganese, nickel, and graphite. The U.S. Geological Survey designated
these and other minerals as “critical,” according to the methodology codified in the Energy Act of 2020.
The United States is heavily dependent on imports for these minerals for use in EV batteries and other applications. The
United States currently mines some lithium, cobalt, and nickel, but it does not currently mine any manganese or graphite.
Various companies have indicated plans to expand the mineral production of these minerals. Recycling products containing
these minerals contributes to some domestic production, and it represents further potential contributions to domestic supply.
Additional research to increase EV battery efficiencies or into new battery chemistries can reduce the requirements of these
critical minerals for EV battery production.
The 117th Congress has considered, and may choose to consider further, various options related to EV adoption and enhanced
domestic production of minerals used in EV batteries. Of the options considered, some have been included in enacted
legislation. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58) includes multiple sections related to EV adoption
and enhancing domestic supply of the critical minerals used in EV batteries. Some examples include Section 11401, Grants
for Charging and Fueling Infrastructure; Section 40201, Earth Mapping Resources Initiative; Section 40207, Battery
Processing and Manufacturing; Section 40208, Electric Drive Vehicle Battery Recycling and Second-Life Applications
Program; Section 40210, Critical Minerals Mining and Recycling Research; Section 40401, Department of Energy Loan
Programs; Section 71101, Clean School Bus Program; Division J, and Title VIII, National Electric Vehicle Formula Program.
In addition to ongoing federal programs related to EV batteries and changes resulting from provisions in the IIJA, Congress
could consider further changes related to the domestic supply of critical minerals used in EV batteries. Some additional
related areas include mining on federal lands, taxes and tariffs, and EV battery chemistry research, among others.

Congressional Research Service

Critical Minerals in Electric Vehicle Batteries

Introduction
Expected growth of electric vehicle (EV) sales globally and in the United States has led to
concern among some Members of Congress and various industry advocacy groups about securing
mineral inputs used in EV batteries.1 While some of these minerals are in the process of being
developed domestically, some are not found in the United States in economically viable deposits.
This report provides background information on EV batteries, with a focus on the minerals used
in them.
The main physical differences between an EV and an internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicle
lie in the power train: the major components of an EV power train include a battery, a motor, and
ancillary systems, while the major components of an ICE power train include liquid fuel storage,
combustion chambers (and cooling system), transmission, and an exhaust system (with emissions
controls).2 Much concern is focused on the access to or supply of critical minerals required for
EV batteries, partially due to the large quantities required; less concern is focused on EV motors,
which generally require small quantities of rare earth elements.3
This report focuses on the minerals contained in EV batteries and includes discussion of some
policy issues related to securing access to these minerals. More specifically, it focuses on five
minerals used in common EV battery chemistries. These five minerals have been designated as
critical minerals by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), which indicates a higher potential for
supply chain disruption, due in part to elevated import dependence.4 Domestic production of
some minerals for EV batteries may not occur due to depleted or uneconomical mineral reserves,
while other mineral deposits have been identified and are in the process of being developed.
This report begins by providing a brief overview of EVs, the changing EV market, and the
different technologies available and expected for EV batteries. The focus of the report then moves
to the minerals used in EV batteries in the light-duty vehicle segment; mineral requirements for
EV batteries in other vehicle segments may vary. Vehicle duty segments and other factors drive
the types and quantities of minerals used in the resulting batteries.

1 International Energy Agency (IEA), Global EV Outlook 2022, 2022, p. 5, at https://www.iea.org/reports/global-ev-
outlook-2022. Two sources that include statements and testimony from several Members of Congress and industry
groups highlighting concerns over access to critical minerals include House Committee on Natural Resources,
“American Critical Mineral Independence Act,” at https://republicans-naturalresources.house.gov/legislative-priorities/
american-critical-mineral-independence-act.htm, and Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, “Full
Committee Hearing on Domestic Critical Mineral Supply Chains,” at https://www.energy.senate.gov/hearings/2022/3/
full-committee-hearing-on-domestic-critical-mineral-supply-chain.
2 For an overview of EVs and their differences from ICE vehicles, see CRS In Focus IF11101, Electrification May
Disrupt the Automotive Supply Chain, by Bill Canis. For an overview of potential environmental impacts of ICEs and
EVs, see CRS Report R46420, Environmental Effects of Battery Electric and Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles, by
Richard K. Lattanzio and Corrie E. Clark.
3 The average weight of anode and cathode material is about 200 kilograms (Olumide Winjobi, Qiang Dai, and Jarod C.
Kelly, Update of Bill-of-Materials and Cathode Chemistry Addition for Lithium-Ion Batteries in GREET 2020,
Argonne National Laboratory, October 2020, p. 6, at https://greet.es.anl.gov/publication-vmc_2020). The average
weight of a neodymium magnet in an average EV is a little under three kilograms; neodymium is a rare earth element
and a critical mineral (Eric Onstad, “China Frictions Steer Electric Automakers Away from Rare Earth Magnets,”
Reuters, July 20, 2021). Rare earth elements are a group of elements considered critical by the U.S. Geological Survey;
for more information on rare earth elements, see CRS Report R46618, An Overview of Rare Earth Elements and
Related Issues for Congress, by Brandon S. Tracy.
4 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), “2022 Final List of Critical Minerals,” 87 Federal Register 10381, February 24,
2022. Section 7002 of the Energy Act of 2020 (Division Z, P.L. 116-260 ) includes provisions directing the USGS to
identify critical minerals.
Congressional Research Service

1

Critical Minerals in Electric Vehicle Batteries

Federal initiatives to spur EV adoption in the United States include those from the Biden
Administration. Executive Order (E.O.) 14008 aims to revitalize the federal government’s
sustainability efforts by using “all available procurement authorities to achieve or facilitate ...
clean and zero-emission vehicles for Federal, State, local, and Tribal government fleets, including
vehicles of the United States Postal Service.”5 Also from the Biden Administration, E.O. 14037
outlines a policy goal “that 50 percent of all new passenger cars and light trucks sold in 2030 be
zero-emission vehicles, including battery electric, plug-in hybrid electric, or fuel cell electric
vehicles.”6
Specific to EV battery minerals, President Biden issued the “Presidential Determination Pursuant
to Section 303 of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as Amended,” in which he determined that
“sustainable and responsible domestic mining, beneficiation, and value-added processing of
strategic and critical materials for the production of large-capacity batteries for the automotive, e-
mobility, and stationary storage sectors are essential to the national defense.”7 This determination
directs the U.S. Department of Defense to take certain actions related to supporting domestic
mining.8
In addition to legislation related to the general adoption of EVs, which is outside of the scope of
this report, the 117th Congress has shown interest in securing and enhancing the domestic supply
of EV battery minerals through proposed and enacted legislation.9 For example, the 117th
Congress passed the Infrastructure Investments and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58), which contains
various provisions that could enhance domestic EV adoption and production of EV battery
minerals.
States may also target policies to enable the transition to EVs. For example, California has issued
a requirement for all passenger cars and trucks sold in 2035 (and all medium- and heavy-duty
trucks sold in 2045) and thereafter to be zero emissions vehicles.10 A consideration of state-
specific policies is beyond the scope of this report.
EV Market Overview
According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), more than 16 million total EVs had been
sold worldwide by the end of 2021, with about 6.6 million EVs sold in 2021, representing nearly
10% of all car sales.11 The U.S. EV market is small when compared to those in China and Europe:

5 Executive Order (E.O.) 14008, “Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad,” 86 Federal Register 7619,
February 1, 2021.
6 E.O. 14037, “Strengthening American Leadership in Clean Cars and Trucks,” 86 Federal Register 43583, August 10,
2021.
7 Executive Office of the President, “Presidential Determination Pursuant to Section 303 of the Defense Production Act
of 1950, as Amended,” 87 Federal Register 19775, April 6, 2022. “E-mobility” commonly refers to electrified
transportation options, often integrating rechargeable batteries.
8 For more information on the Presidential Determination, critical minerals, and the DPA, see CRS Report R47124,
2022 Invocation of the Defense Production Act for Large-Capacity Batteries: In Brief, by Heidi M. Peters et al.
9 For additional information on related laws and legislation proposed during the 116th and 117th Congresses, see CRS
Report R45747, Vehicle Electrification: Federal and State Issues Affecting Deployment, by Bill Canis, Corrie E. Clark,
and Molly F. Sherlock; and CRS Report R46864, Alternative Fuels and Vehicles: Legislative Proposals, by Melissa N.
Diaz.
10 E.O. N-79-20, Executive Department State of California, September 23, 2020, at https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-
content/uploads/2020/09/9.23.20-EO-N-79-20-Climate.pdf.
11 IEA, Global EV Outlook 2022, 2022, p. 4, at https://www.iea.org/reports/global-ev-outlook-2022.
Congressional Research Service

2

Critical Minerals in Electric Vehicle Batteries

new U.S. EV registrations were slightly less than 10% of new global EV registrations in 2021,
while registrations in China were 50% of the global total and European registrations were 35%.12
Various countries and companies have stated policies to accelerate the adoption of EVs in the
transportation sector. One study indicates that more than 40 countries have announced some form
of future bans on the sales of light-duty ICE vehicles or mandates requiring future sales to be
zero-emission vehicles.13 Fourteen countries and 23 companies and organizations support the
EV30@30 Campaign, which is a campaign within the IEA’s Electric Vehicle Initiative with the
goal of having EVs reach a 30% new sales share by 2030; the United States is not a signatory
country to the EV30@30 Campaign.14
At least 18 vehicle manufacturers have made commitments to increase global sales of EVs, and
various global companies have publicly declared commitments to incorporating EVs into their
fleets.15 Such public and private commitments suggest that EV sales could continue into the
expected future, with some estimates indicating 200 million total EVs sold by 2030.16
The potential for an accelerating global transition to EVs leads some to question the availability
of the minerals and materials needed to build EV batteries, especially as some mineral
requirements (and availability) vary greatly by battery type. Some have raised questions that are
beyond the scope of this report, including questions framing such growth as a potential threat to
national security (if the growth is tied to imports), as a potential opportunity for increased human
rights abuses, and as a potential threat for increased environmental destruction.
EV Battery Overview
This report focuses on the critical minerals used in lithium-ion batteries, which are the dominant
type of rechargeable batteries that are used in EVs.17 Additionally, the focus of this report is on
the critical minerals used in batteries for battery electric vehicles (BEVs) in the light-duty vehicle
segment—namely, those vehicles without an ICE—given the dominance of BEVs in the EV
market.18
An EV battery, commonly called a battery pack, is an assembled component generally consisting
of packaging and mounting structures, an electronic and electrical control system, and battery
cells. Each cell contains two electrodes (a cathode and an anode), an electrolyte (a chemical
solution that allows electricity to flow between the electrodes), and a separator (a physical barrier
between the cathode and anode).19 EV batteries play important roles in EVs, and the complexity

12 Ibid.
13 IEA, Global EV Outlook 2022, 2022, p. 60, at https://www.iea.org/reports/global-ev-outlook-2022.
14 Ibid., p. 110.
15 IEA, Global EV Outlook 2021, 2021, p. 25, at https://www.iea.org/reports/global-ev-outlook-2021.
16 IEA, Global EV Outlook 2022, 2022, p. 5, at https://www.iea.org/reports/global-ev-outlook-2022.
17 While other battery options may exist for EVs (e.g., fuel cells, sodium-ion), only lithium-ion batteries are mentioned
as available in the current market in the Global EV Outlook 2022 (IEA, 2022); review of other sources did not result in
findings of other battery types in use in the current EV market. In 2021, Contemporary Amperex Technology Co., Ltd.
(CATL), the world’s largest EV battery manufacturer, unveiled its sodium-ion battery; however, it is unclear if any EV
manufacturers have incorporated it into their vehicles (CATL, “CATL Unveils Its Latest Breakthrough Technology by
Releasing Its First Generation of Sodium-Ion Batteries,” press release, July 29, 2021, at https://www.catl.com/en/news/
665.html).
18 IEA, Global EV Outlook 2022, 2022, pp. 16-18. For background information on EVs, see CRS Report R46231,
Electric Vehicles: A Primer on Technology and Selected Policy Issues, by Melissa N. Diaz.
19 A cathode is the positive battery terminal, and the anode is the negative battery terminal. During use, negatively
Congressional Research Service

3

link to page 11 Critical Minerals in Electric Vehicle Batteries

and mineral content of EV batteries is reflected in the battery cost. Some estimates place the cost
of an EV battery between 30% and 33% of the total cost of a vehicle, costing on average
$6,300.20 Further illuminating the cost drivers of EV batteries, one study indicates that “while
materials are the most expensive component in battery cost, electrode manufacturing is the
second most expensive piece, accounting for between 20 and 40 percent of the total battery pack
cost, with between 27 and 40 percent of this cost coming from electrode preparation.”21
EV Battery Chemistries
Different lithium-ion battery cells can be designed to create different battery packs with varying
characteristics to meet desired vehicle parameters. EV battery cells incorporate various minerals
depending on the cell’s specification, and the cells are combined to form the battery pack using
various other materials.
The cell’s cathode chemistry is commonly used for general classification, with additional
classification indicated by stoichiometric ratios (i.e., the molar ratio of elements in a compound)
for some cathode chemistries.22 The IEA notes, regarding lithium-ion batteries in general, “the
most commonly used varieties are lithium cobalt oxide (LCO), lithium manganese oxide (LMO),
lithium iron phosphate (LFP), lithium nickel cobalt aluminium oxide (NCA) and lithium nickel
manganese cobalt oxide (NMC).23 As graphite is currently widely used as the anode in lithium-
ion batteries, the anode chemistry is not typically mentioned as part of an EV battery’s chemistry.
Some aspects of the supply and demand for the five critical minerals used in these common
chemistries are considered in greater detail in “Critical Mineral Supply for EV Batteries.” The
five minerals covered in that section are lithium, cobalt, manganese, nickel, and graphite. Other
minerals used in EV batteries such as aluminum, iron, and phosphate are readily available
through global and domestic supply chains and not considered further in this report.
The demand for specific EV battery cell chemistries is driven by an EV manufacturer’s
optimization of various factors, including overall cost, battery pack monitoring and cooling

charged electrons flow from the anode to the cathode; charging the battery reverses this flow. For more information on
lithium-ion batteries and their components, see Argonne National Laboratory (ANL), “Science 101: Batteries,” at
https://www.anl.gov/science-101/batteries. For an earlier look at the domestic EV supply chain, see CRS Report
R41709, Battery Manufacturing for Hybrid and Electric Vehicles: Policy Issues, by Bill Canis.
20 For example, see Adrian König, Lorenzo Nicoletti, and Daniel Schröder, et al., “An Overview of Parameter and Cost
for Battery Electric Vehicles,” World Electric Vehicle Journal, vol. 12, no. 21 (2021), at https://doi.org/10.3390/
wevj12010021; Nic Lutsey and Michael Nicholas, Update on Electric Vehicle Costs in the United States Through
2030, International Council on Clean Transportation, Working Paper 2019-06, 2019, at https://theicct.org/sites/default/
files/publications/EV_cost_2020_2030_20190401.pdf; and David Stringer and Kyunghee Park, “Why an Electric Car
Battery Is So Expensive, for Now,” Bloomberg, September 16, 2021, at https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/
2021-09-16/why-an-electric-car-battery-is-so-expensive-for-now-quicktake.
21 W. Blake Hawley and Jianlin Li, “Electrode Manufacturing for Lithium-Ion Batteries—Analysis of Current and Next
Generation Processing,” Journal of Energy Storage, vol. 25 (2019), p. 3.
22 For example, two nickel manganese cobalt (NMC) chemistries are NMC111 and NMC811, with the three numbers
after NMC indicating the stoichiometric ratio of the three elements; ‘stoichiometric ratio’ refers to the atomic mass
ratio of the given chemistry. For the NMC111 chemistry, nickel, manganese, and cobalt would be used in equal
proportions (i.e., 33.3%). For the NMC811 chemistry, the weight percentages would be 80% nickel, 10% manganese,
and 10% cobalt (Kirsten Hund, Daniele La Porta, and Thao P. Fabregas, et al., Minerals for Climate Action: The
Mineral Intensity of the Clean Energy Transition, World Bank Group, 2020, p. 63, at https://pubdocs.worldbank.org/
en/961711588875536384/Minerals-for-Climate-Action-The-Mineral-Intensity-of-the- Clean-Energy-Transition).
23 IEA, The Role of Critical Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions, 2021, p. 90, at https://www.iea.org/reports/the-role-
of-critical-minerals-in-clean-energy-transitions. LCO is not currently suitable for use in EV batteries.
Congressional Research Service

4

link to page 8 link to page 20 Critical Minerals in Electric Vehicle Batteries

systems, battery energy and power densities, safety, and lifespan.24 An apparently minor change
to a cell’s chemistry can result in seemingly large differences in the required mineral inputs and
other battery characteristics. Table 1 provides an example of varying weights for a selection of
battery chemistries, for a vehicle with a 300-mile range.
Table 1. Selected EV Battery Mineral and Component Weights (kg)
For indicated battery chemistries

LMO
LFP
NCA
NMC111
NMC811
Cathode Material
166
146
97
125
90
Graphite (Anode)
56
74
64
64
65
Cell
318
332
224
267
226
Pack
383
405
281
329
285
Source: Olumide Winjobi, Qiang Dai, and Jarod C. Kelly, Update of Bill-of-Materials and Cathode Chemistry
Addition for Lithium-ion Batteries in GREET 2020, ANL, October 2020, p. 6, at https://greet.es.anl.gov/publication-
vmc_2020.
Notes: ‘kg’ is kilograms; ‘LMO’ is lithium manganese oxide; ‘LFP’ is lithium iron phosphate; ‘NCA’ is nickel cobalt
aluminum; ‘NMC111’ and ‘NMC811’ are two chemistries of nickel manganese cobalt. The cell weight includes
the cathode and anode weights, plus additional system and material weights. The pack (containing multiple cells)
weight includes the cell weights plus additional system and material weights. These weights are based on a 300-
mile range battery pack; see source for additional pack specifications.
EV Battery Research
Various EV battery research efforts are underway that could alter the mineral requirements of
future EVs. Efforts generally aim to lower the costs of EV batteries, extend the range of EVs (by
increasing battery energy and power densities), and reduce charging time, all while ensuring safe
operation of the battery. EV battery research often overlaps with chemical energy storage
generally, whose focus may not be on EVs.25 Some research focuses on improving cathode or
anode production processes, which could lower the production costs of some types of battery
relative to others, potentially impacting mineral demands.26 Additional research focuses on
enhancing secondary supply (i.e., recycling) of critical minerals for EV batteries (discussed
further in the section “Secondary Mineral Supply”).
Among EV battery research efforts are federally funded programs to improve EV batteries. Much
of the federal funding for this research is directed to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). DOE
may, depending on the program and funding type, further direct these funds to national labs,
academic partners, private sector grant recipients, or others. The following are examples of
ongoing federal research programs within DOE.

24 For an example discussion of some factors facing EV manufacturers regarding battery chemistry options, see Yuanli
Ding, Zachary P. Cano, and Aiping Yu, et al., “Automotive Li‑Ion Batteries: Current Status and Future Perspectives,”
Electrochemical Energy Reviews, vol. 2 (2019), pp. 7-8.
25 For a summary of a battery research panel discussion, including discussions of sodium-ion, multivalent, metal–air,
and flow batteries in relation to lithium-ion batteries, see Yasin Emre Durmus, Huang Zhang, and Florian Baakes, et
al., “Side by Side Battery Technologies with Lithium-Ion Based Batteries,” Advanced Energy Materials, vol. 10
(2020), pp. 1-21.
26 W. Blake Hawley and Jianlin Li, “Electrode Manufacturing for Lithium-Ion Batteries—Analysis of Current and Next
Generation Processing,” Journal of Energy Storage, vol. 25, (2019), Article 100862.
Congressional Research Service

5

Critical Minerals in Electric Vehicle Batteries

 U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy,
Vehicle Technologies Office (VTO). VTO’s Batteries, Charging, and Electric
Vehicles program aims to research new battery chemistry and cell technologies
that can reduce costs, increase the range, and decrease charge time.27 VTO also
funds the Silicon Consortium Project, which aims to eliminate barriers to
replacing graphite-based anodes with silicon-based anodes in lithium-ion battery
cells, and the ReCell Center, which is a “national collaboration of industry,
academia and national laboratories working together to advance recycling
technologies along the entire battery life-cycle for current and future battery
chemistries.”28
 Joint Center for Energy Storage Research (JCESR). “JCESR is a DOE Energy
Innovation Hub led by Argonne National Laboratory and focused on advancing
battery science and technology.”29
 Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne Collaborative Center for Energy Storage
Science (ACCESS). “ACCESS is a catalyst for innovation comprised of scientists
and engineers from across the lab who solve complex energy storage problems
through multidisciplinary research.”30 Also within the Argonne National
Laboratory is the Li-Bridge program: “Li-Bridge is a public-private alliance
committed to accelerating the development of a robust and secure domestic
supply chain for lithium-based batteries.”31
 National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Energy Storage Research.
NREL’s energy storage research spans a range of applications and technologies,
including electrochemical storage, stationary storage, storage for transportation,
and circular economy for batteries, among others.32
 Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), Electrochemical Energy
Storage. PNNL “plays a key role in developing new materials and processes that
are resulting in improvements to lithium-ion and lithium-metal batteries, redox
flow batteries, and other battery chemistries.”33 PNNL also leads VTO’s
Battery500 Consortium, which has the goal “to improve the batteries that power
electric vehicles so they have more than double the specific energy ... found in
today’s batteries.”34

27 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Vehicles Technology Office, “Batteries, Charging, and Electric Vehicles,” at
https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/batteries-charging-and-electric-vehicles.
28 Information on the consortium can be found on national laboratory websites, including National Renewable Energy
Laboratory, “Silicon Consortium Project,” at https://www.nrel.gov/transportation/silicon-anode-consortium.html, and
Argonne National Laboratory, “Silicon Consortium Project,” at https://www.anl.gov/access/research/projects/silicon-
consortium-project, among others. For an overview of some of the challenges and ongoing research into silicon anodes
for lithium batteries, see Yajun Yang, Shuxing Wu, and Yaping Zhang, et al., “Towards Efficient Binders for Silicon
Based Lithium-ion Battery Anodes,” Chemical Engineering Journal, vol. 406 (2021), Article 126807. Information on
the ReCell Center can be found at https://recellcenter.org/.
29 Joint Center for Energy Storage Research, at https://www.jcesr.org/.
30 ANL, “Argonne Collaborative Center for Energy Storage Science,” at https://www.anl.gov/access.
31 ANL, “Li-Bridge,” at https://www.anl.gov/li-bridge.
32 National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), “Energy Storage Research,” at https://www.nrel.gov/storage/
research.html.
33 Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), “Electrochemical Energy Storage,” at https://www.pnnl.gov/
electrochemical-energy-storage.
34 PNNL, “Battery500 Consortium,” at https://www.pnnl.gov/projects/battery500-consortium.
Congressional Research Service

6

Critical Minerals in Electric Vehicle Batteries

EV Battery Supply Chains
EV battery packs and cells incorporate numerous commodities into highly specialized products;
each pack is often designed for a specific drivetrain of a specific EV model. While some of these
commodities may be obtained through robust global supply chains (e.g., aluminum, copper), the
supply chains of other commodities may face a higher risk to disruption (e.g., cobalt, lithium). As
the majority of EV manufacturing and sales occur outside the United States, so does the majority
of EV battery pack and cell production. A study from the Argonne National Laboratory (ANL)
notes, “[w]orldwide, of the 13 top battery production companies, which supplied 94% of PEV
[plug-in electric vehicle] battery cells in 2017, seven have headquarters in China, three in Japan,
and three in South Korea.”35
While China accounts for over 70% of global EV battery cell production capacity,36 the United
States has developed battery cell and pack supply chains for some of the U.S. demand.
Approximately 20 U.S.-based companies source EV battery cells and packs for the U.S. market.37
According to a study of data from 2020, 70% of battery cells and 87% of battery packs for EVs
sold in the United States were produced in the United States.38 “Producing” a cell or pack does
not convey information on the origin of the minerals used in the cells, nor on where the chemical
compounds used in the cells were produced from the refined minerals. At least 85% of the
domestic EV battery cell and pack production in 2020 stemmed from the Tesla-Panasonic joint-
venture Gigafactory, where both companies develop batteries; Panasonic manufactures cells for
Tesla and other companies, and Tesla manufactures battery packs for Tesla vehicles to be sold in
the United States.39 In the first half of 2021, Tesla captured 66% of the domestic EV market,
followed by Chevrolet, Ford, Nissan, Audi, and other companies.40
Public data are not available to indicate whether the mineral inputs for the battery cells are
produced domestically or imported. Some research highlights U.S. dependence on foreign sources
of minerals, noting the efforts of the governments of some countries to support their domestic
mining companies operating in foreign countries and to enhance mineral processing capabilities,
including for imported minerals.41 In an effort to contribute to the understanding of lithium-ion
battery supply chains in North America, NAATBatt International, a battery advocacy group,
commissioned NREL to produce a public database of all North American companies working in
the lithium-ion battery industry. According to NAATBatt,
The database is the first attempt ever to identify every company in North America working
in every aspect of the lithium-ion battery supply chain. Assembling the database required

35 Yan Zhou, David Gohlke, and Luke Rush, et al., Lithium-Ion Battery Supply Chain for E-Drive Vehicles in the
United States: 2010-2020, ANL, ANL/ESD-21/3, 2021, p. 1, at https://doi.org/10.2172/1778934.
36 IEA, Global EV Outlook 2022, 2022, p. 6.
37 David Gohlke and Yan Zhou, Assessment of Light-duty Plug-in Electric Vehicles in the United States, 2010-2019,
ANL, ANL/ESD-20/4, 2020, p. xv, at https://doi.org/10.2172/1785708.
38 Ibid.
39 Ibid, pp. 3-7.
40 Marty Miller, “While EV Registrations Grow Through the First Half of 2021, Non-Electric Remains Dominant,”
Experian, October 18, 2021, at https://www.experian.com/blogs/insights/2021/10/ev-registrations-grow-first-half-2021-
non-electric-remains-dominant/.
41 Nedal T. Nassar, Elisa Alonso, and Jamie L. Brainard, Investigation of U.S. Foreign Reliance on Critical Minerals—
U.S. Geological Survey Technical Input Document in Response to Executive Order No. 13953 Signed September 30,
2020, U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report 2020–1127, 2020, at https://doi.org/ 10.3133/ ofr20201127.
Congressional Research Service

7

Critical Minerals in Electric Vehicle Batteries

identifying exactly what the critical sectors of that supply chain are and then identifying
each company active in every one of those sectors.42
Critical Mineral Supply for EV Batteries
Industry reports and media coverage often highlight concern over the expected high demand for
the minerals used in EV batteries. These concerns are generally focused on the less common
materials used in the manufacture of EV battery packs and cells. This section highlights some
aspects of supply and demand for five critical minerals whose supply is commonly positioned as
potentially at risk for disruption: lithium, cobalt, nickel, manganese, and graphite. The selection
of these minerals is based on their current use in EV batteries; new battery chemistries and types
(e.g., solid-state batteries) could change future mineral requirements,43 but are not considered at
this time.
The time required to locate an economically suitable mineral deposit, acquiring capital, land,
mineral rights, and permits, among other requirements, can take years. The processes to open a
mine on private, state, and federal lands can vary considerably. Some legislators and industry
organizations are concerned that the length of this process can affect access to mineral inputs for
EVs. In a review of the process to open a mine on federal lands, the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) found that the time required to reach the “mine plan approval” stage “ranged from
about 1 month to over 11 years and averaged approximately 2 years.”44 The Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58) includes provisions in Section 40206 to “improve the
quality and timeliness of Federal permitting and review processes with respect to critical mineral
production on Federal land.”45
Different mining processes can be used to extract different minerals. The two most common
mining processes are open pit mining (i.e., surface mining) and underground mining; a third
mining process involves the extraction of compounds or ions from brines (typically found
underground, containing salts of various elements). The characteristics of the mineral deposit
usually determine the appropriate mining process. After the ore or mineral substance is mined,
additional processing is usually required to produce commodity mineral substances that can be
used as inputs to batteries. Common extraction processes include solvent extraction,

42 NAATBatt International, “NAATBatt Publishes Database of the North American Lithium-Ion Supply Chain,” at
https://naatbatt.org/naatbatt-publishes-database-of-the-north-american-lithium-ion-supply-chain/. The database is
available from NREL at https://www.nrel.gov/transportation/li-ion-battery-supply-chain-database.html.
43 Research on new battery chemistries is often driven by concerns over current battery mineral inputs and price; new
chemistries adopted by the EV battery market would be expected to be cheaper and based on more common mineral
inputs. One example is the ongoing efforts to replace cobalt, given its limited production; see Hao Jia, Xianhui Zhang,
and Yaobin Xu, et al., “Toward the Practical Use of Cobalt-Free Lithium-Ion Batteries by an Advanced Ether-Based
Electrolyte,” ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces, vol. 13 (2021), p. 44339–44347. Another example is the effort to
replace graphite anodes with silicon, which is cheaper and widely available; see NREL, “Silicon Consortium Project,”
at https://www.nrel.gov/transportation/silicon-anode-consortium.html.
44 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), Hardrock Mining: BLM and Forest Service Have Taken Some
Actions to Expedite the Mine Plan Review Process but Could Do More, GAO-16-165, 2016, p. 13, at
https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-16-165. The “mine plan,” or “mine operations plan” is a detailed document
indicating the mine’s facilities, locations of surface disturbances, and required infrastructure, among other
specifications. The approval of the mine plan typically would occur after other federal reviews and permits are
obtained; state and local requirements may still be pending at the time of approval.
45 For an overview of mining on federal lands, see CRS Report R46278, Policy Topics and Background Related to
Mining on Federal Lands, by Brandon S. Tracy.
Congressional Research Service

8

link to page 20 Critical Minerals in Electric Vehicle Batteries

electrowinning, and smelting, and vary according to the chemical composition of the ore.46 Some
research seeks to reduce the process steps—reducing time and costs—by combining previously
separate steps to produce the required battery input.47
Each subsection below includes an overview of the indicated mineral. Information presented
includes production processes, global deposits, domestic supply situation, demand, and other
related topics, including net import reliance (NIR). According to the USGS, “Net import reliance
(NIR) is calculated as the amount of imported material (including changes in stockpiles) minus
exports and changes in government and industry stocks and is expressed as a percentage of
domestic consumption.”48
NIR may not be readily calculated from the information presented in this report. The USGS
definition of NIR conveys what could be a misleading simplicity to calculating NIR. NIR
calculations can be somewhat complex, as imports may be used for primary production,
consumption, and/or for inputs into production that are subsequently exported. Additionally, there
are various production, import, export, and consumption categories used to track mineral flows,
potentially adding complexity to the NIR calculation.
The order of the minerals presented starts with cathode minerals: lithium is first, as it is used in
all cathodes considered, followed by cobalt, manganese, and nickel. Graphite, the mineral used in
the anode, follows the cathode minerals. The subsection “Secondary Mineral Supply” discusses
EV battery recycling as a potential supply option available for the five minerals. Each mineral
subheading contains information on the element’s mineralization and geologic formation. While
this information can be quite technical, it can provide a starting point to understanding why some
minerals are found in geographically dispersed locations, while others are concentrated in limited
locations.49
Table 2. Selected Statistics for Five EV Battery Minerals
In metric tons, unless indicated otherwise

Lithium
Cobalt
Manganese
Nickel
Graphite
NIR (%)
>25
76
100
48
100
U.S. Production
withheld
700
0
18,000
0
Global Production
100,000
170,000
20,000,000
2,700,000
1,000,000
Exports
1,900
4,800
1,000
25,000
8,400
Imports
2,500
9,900
460,000
110,024
53,000
U.S. Reserves
750,000
69,000
0
340,000
not indicated

46 For an overview of metallurgy and common extraction processes, see Britannica, “Extractive Metallurgy,” at
https://www.britannica.com/science/metallurgy/Extractive-metallurgy. A definition of “ore” is “the naturally occurring
material from which a mineral or minerals of economic value can be extracted” (USGS, “EarthWord-Ore,” at
https://www.usgs.gov/communications-and-publishing/news/earthword-ore).
47 For an example of research on processes that could eliminate steps in lithium hydroxide production by eliminating
the current intermediate production step of lithium carbonate, see Mario Grageda, Alonso Gonzalez, and Adrian
Quispe, et al., “Analysis of a Process for Producing Battery Grade Lithium Hydroxide by Membrane Electrodialysis,”
Membranes, vol. 10 (2020), Article 198, at https://doi.org/10.3390/membranes10090198.
48 Steven M. Fortier, Nedal T. Nassar, and Graham W. Lederer, et al., Draft Critical Mineral List—Summary of
Methodology and Background Information—U.S. Geological Survey Technical Input Document in Response to
Secretarial Order No. 3359, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Open-File Report 2018-1021, p. 9.
49 For more information on geology and mineralogy, see Britannica, “Geology,” at https://www.britannica.com/science/
geology.
Congressional Research Service

9

Critical Minerals in Electric Vehicle Batteries

Lithium
Cobalt
Manganese
Nickel
Graphite
Global Reserves
22,000,000
7,600,000
1,500,000,000
95,000,000
320,000,000
Source: USGS, Mineral Commodity Summaries, 2022, 2022, at https://doi.org/10.3133/mcs2022.
Notes: Values are estimates for 2021. NIR is “net import reliance.” The USGS may withhold production data to
avoid disclosing company proprietary data. U.S. production does not include secondary production (i.e.,
production from recycling). Values for manganese imports and exports are gross weights of ores and
concentrates, not contained manganese. Nickel import and export values represent the sum of ores,
concentrates, and primary production. Additional nickel production from refinery byproducts is withheld. “not
indicated”: U.S. reserves of graphite are described as “relatively small”; no tonnage is indicated (p. 75).
Lithium
Lithium (atomic number 3), the lightest of all metallic elements, is highly reactive and is not
found in nature in elemental form. Concentration of lithium in the Earth’s crust is about 20 parts
per million.50 Lithium has been used in metallurgy, medications, and glass glazing for about 100
years, with more recent uses for military applications, grease, and cosmetics. Lithium has been
used in batteries since at least 1935.51
Lithium deposits commonly occur in rock formations in minerals (e.g., petalites, lepidolites,
spodumene), clays, and in solution in brines (e.g., salars, geothermal systems). According to the
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS),
lithium is extracted from brines that are pumped from beneath arid sedimentary basins and
extracted from granitic pegmatite ores. The leading producer of lithium from brine is Chile,
and the leading producer of lithium from pegmatites is Australia. Other potential sources
of lithium include clays, geothermal brines, oilfield brines, and zeolites.52
In 2021, the United States had one lithium brine production operation, the Albemarle’s Silver
Peak lithium brine operation in Nevada.53 Additionally, two companies process domestic and
imported lithium inputs; USGS withheld domestic lithium production estimates for 2021 to avoid
disclosing company proprietary data. Increased demand for lithium has led to increased interest in
domestic lithium mining. Some companies have reported plans to begin lithium operations in the
United States, including the following examples.
Noram Lithium Corporation, a Canadian company, plans to develop a lithium clay mining
operation on federal land in Nevada, one mile from the Albemarle operation. The lithium would
be processed near the mine site, and annual production of lithium carbonate is expected to be
approximately 6,000 metric tons per year, for an initial period of 40 years.54

50 Dwight Bradley and Brian Jaskula, Lithium—For Harnessing Renewable Energy, USGS, 2014, at http://dx.doi.org/
10.3133/fs20143035.
51 Alessio Miatto, Barbara K. Reck, and James West, et al., “The Rise and Fall of American Lithium,” Resources,
Conservation & Recycling, vol. 162 (2020), Article 105034.
52 Dwight C. Bradley, Lisa L. Stillings, and Brian W. Jaskula, et al., “Chapter K—Lithium,” in Critical Mineral
Resources of the United States—Economic and Environmental Geology and Prospects for Future Supply, USGS, ed.
Klaus J. Schulz, John H. DeYoung, Jr., Robert R. Seal II, and Dwight C. Bradley (2017), p. K1, at https://doi.org/
10.3133/pp1802K.
53 Albemarle, “Silver Peak, Nevada,” at https://www.albemarle.com/locations/north-america/nevada.
54 ABH Engineering, Preliminary Economic Assessment Zeus Project, 2021, at https://noramlithiumcorp.com/resource/
clayton-valley/technical-report/.
Congressional Research Service

10

Critical Minerals in Electric Vehicle Batteries

An Australian company, ioneer, plans to develop a lithium mine on federal land in Nevada. ioneer
indicates that the mine would produce approximately 20,000 metric tons of lithium carbonate
over the expected 26-year mine life.55
Piedmont Lithium is planning a spodumene mine and lithium hydroxide conversion operation on
private land in North Carolina. Piedmont Lithium reports that the combined mine/hydroxide
operation would produce 30,000 metric tons of lithium hydroxide per year, for 20 years.56
Piedmont Lithium and ioneer have applied for loans via the U.S. Department of Energy’s
Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing loan program.57
BHE Renewables, Controlled Thermal Resources (CTR), and EnergySource Minerals, among
other companies, have expressed interest in extracting lithium from geothermal brines.58 The U.S.
Department of Energy is funding a study of the potential to extract lithium from the geothermal
brines in the Salton Sea region in California. Initial estimates of the lithium contained in the
region indicate one of the largest global resources; however, it is not yet technologically or
economically viable to extract the lithium.59 Research considering the potential role of lithium
production from geothermal brines states
Li extraction from geothermal brines has captured substantial attention because it taps into
waste brine after being used for power generation and makes use of existing geothermal
facilities to lower production costs.... Electricity is generated from geothermal by using the
heat from hot brine to make steam that spins a turbine. The brine is then pumped back into
the ground through the injection well. Obtaining Li from the brine, before cycling back
into the ground, would be a means to offset these capital costs and make electricity
generation from geothermal more cost-effective.60
Imports of lithium during 2021 are estimated to be 2,500 metric tons, and lithium exports in 2021
are estimated to be 1,900 metric tons. NIR on lithium was calculated to be greater than 25% in
2021.61 During the period 2017-2020, Argentina was the largest supplier of U.S. lithium imports
(54%). For 2021, Australia is estimated to have the highest worldwide mineral production of
lithium (55,000 metric tons); total global production is estimated to be 100,000 metric tons.62
The price per metric ton of lithium carbonate averaged $17,000 in 2021, which tied with 2018 for
the highest price in the last five years. Lithium’s lowest price in the last five years was $8,000 per
metric ton in 2020.63

55 ioneer, “Rhyolite Ridge Definitive Feasibility Study (DFS),” at https://www.ioneer.com/rhyolite-ridge/dfs-summary.
56 Piedmont Lithium, Piedmont Lithium 2021 Annual Report, 2021, p. 23, at https://piedmontlithium.com/investors/
company-reports/.
57 “ioneer Says US Government Loan Application Moves Forward,” Reuters, December 20, 2021, at
https://www.mining.com/web/ioneer-says-us-government-loan-application-moves-forward/.
58 White House, “FACT SHEET: Securing a Made in America Supply Chain for Critical Minerals,” press release,
February 22, 2022, at https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/02/22/fact-sheet-securing-
a-made-in-america-supply-chain-for-critical-minerals/.
59 Valentina Ruiz Leotaud, “New Project to Investigate If California’s Lithium Valley Is World’s Largest Brine Source
of Lithium,” Mining.com, February 20, 2022, at https://www.mining.com/new-project-to-investigate-if-californias-
lithium-valley-is-the-worlds-largest-brine-source-of-lithium/.
60 Ange-Lionel Toba, Ruby Thuy Nguyen, and Carson Cole, et al., “U.S. Lithium Resources from Geothermal and
Extraction Feasibility,” Resources, Conservation & Recycling, vol. 169 (2021), Article 105514, pp. 1-2.
61 USGS, Mineral Commodity Summaries, 2022, 2022, p. 100, at https://doi.org/10.3133/mcs2022.
62 Ibid., p. 101.
63 Ibid., p. 100.
Congressional Research Service

11

Critical Minerals in Electric Vehicle Batteries

Cobalt
Cobalt (atomic number 27), “is a silvery gray metal that has diverse uses based on certain key
properties, including ferromagnetism, hardness and wear-resistance when alloyed with other
metals, low thermal and electrical conductivity, high melting point, multiple valences, and
production of intense blue colors when combined with silica.”64 Concentration of cobalt in the
Earth’s crust is about 10 parts per million.65 Cobalt is used in many applications, including
batteries, superalloys, cutting tools, magnetic alloys, animal feed additives, bonding agents,
industrial catalysts, drying agents for paint, and glass decolorizers, among others.66
Cobalt deposits are found in various geologic formations and minerals; mineral deposits
containing cobalt can include sulfides found in igneous rocks, and sulfides and oxides found in
sedimentary rocks. Some sea floor nodules and crusts are known to contain cobalt.67 One study of
cobalt ores and metallurgy states
The bulk of world cobalt output usually arises as a by-product of extracting other metals,
mostly nickel (Ni) and copper (Cu), from a wide variety of deposit types mostly Cu-Co
sediment-hosted deposits, but also Ni-Co laterites, Ni-Cu-Co sulphides or hydrothermal
and volcanogenic deposits. Significant differences in ore properties (geochemistry,
mineralogy, alteration and physical properties) exist between cobalt-containing deposits,
as well as within a single deposit, which can host a range of ore types. Variability of cobalt
ores makes it challenging to develop a single extraction or treatment process that will be
able to accommodate all geometallurgical variation. Overall, there is a lack of fundamental
knowledge on cobalt minerals and their processability. The recovery efficiency for cobalt
is generally low, in particular for processes involving flotation and smelting, leading to
significant cobalt losses to mine tailings or smelter slags.68
In 2021, Eagle Mine in Michigan was the only domestic mining operation producing ore
containing cobalt. The cobalt occurs in minor quantities in the mine’s ore, which is mined for its
nickel and copper content; the mineral reserves contain an estimated total of 4.2 metric tons of
cobalt.69 Another operation, United States Strategic Metals (formerly Missouri Cobalt), produces
a cobalt concentrate from mine tailings. One report indicates that United States Strategic Metals
plans to install a hydrometallurgical facility for production of battery-grade cobalt and nickel.70

64 John F. Slack, Bryn E. Kimball, and Kim B. Shedd, “Chapter F—Cobalt,” in Critical Mineral Resources of the
United States—Economic and Environmental Geology and Prospects for Future Supply, USGS, ed. Klaus J. Schulz,
John H. DeYoung, Jr., Robert R. Seal II, and Dwight C. Bradley (2017), p. F1, at https://doi.org/10.3133/pp1802F.
Ferromagnetism is the “physical phenomenon in which certain electrically uncharged materials strongly attract others”
(Britannica, “Ferromagnetism,” at https://www.britannica.com/science/ferromagnetism).
65 Ibid., p. F6.
66 Ibid., pp. F1-F2.
67 Ibid., p. F1.
68 Quentin Dehaine, Laurens T. Tijsseling, and Hylke J. Glass, et al., “Geometallurgy of Cobalt Ores: A Review,”
Minerals Engineering, vol. 160 (2021), Article 106656, p. 1. For more information on cobalt reserves, mining, and its
recovery rate, see Wouter Heijlen, Guy Franceschi, and Chris Duhayon, et al., “Assessing the Adequacy of the Global
Land-Based Mine Development Pipeline in the Light of Future High-Demand Scenarios: The Case of the Battery-
Metals Nickel (Ni) and Cobalt (Co),” Resources Policy, vol. 73 (2021), p. 102202.
69 Lundin Mining Corporation, Technical Report on the Eagle Mine, Michigan, USA, Technical Report NI 43-101,
2017, at https://lundinmining.com/site/assets/files/3640/2017-04-26-eagle-ni-43-101.pdf, p. 1-3.
70 Jeff Lewis, “Exclusive: U.S. Nickel-Cobalt Miner Missouri Cobalt Hires Bank to Go Public Through SPAC,”
Reuters, June 18, 2021, at https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-mining-missouricobalt-exclusive/exclusive-u-s-
nickel-cobalt-miner-missouri-cobalt-hires-bank-to-go-public-through-spac-idUSKCN2DU23A.
Congressional Research Service

12

Critical Minerals in Electric Vehicle Batteries

The USGS indicates that approximately 70% of domestic production of cobalt is from recycling.
Total domestic cobalt production during 2021 is estimated to be 2,300 metric tons.71 Imports of
cobalt during 2021 are estimated to be 9,900 metric tons, and cobalt exports in 2021 are estimated
to be 4,800 metric tons. NIR on cobalt was calculated to be 76%. During the period 2017-2020,
Norway was the largest supplier of U.S. cobalt imports (20%). For 2021, Democratic Republic of
Congo is estimated to have the highest worldwide mineral production of cobalt (120,000 metric
tons); total global production is estimated to be 170,000 metric tons.72
The price of cobalt averaged $22 per pound in 2021. The highest price for cobalt in the last five
years was $32.94 per pound in 2018, and cobalt’s lowest price in the last five years was $14.21
per pound in 2020.73
Manganese
Manganese (atomic number 25), has an average concentration in the Earth’s crust of around 1,000
parts per million, with concentrations varying greatly among different types of rocks.74 According
to the USGS, “manganese is ubiquitous in soil, water, and air. It occurs most often in solid form
but can become soluble under acidic conditions.”75 The USGS also notes
[M]anganese is used predominantly as an alloying addition in steel ... [and] in refining iron
ore to metallic iron prior to the steelmaking process. Manganese has no known substitutes
in the overall conversion of iron ore to steel.... Steel and cast iron production together
provide the largest market for manganese (historically accounting for 77 to 90 percent of
manganese consumption in the United States), although manganese is also used as an alloy
with nonferrous metals, such as aluminum and copper.
Nonmetallurgical applications of manganese include battery cathode production ...; soft
ferrites ... used in electronics; micronutrient additives in fertilizers and animal feed ...;
water treatment chemicals ...; and other chemicals.... 76
Some economically viable deposits of manganese ores formed in the oxygen-depleted waters of
the deep oceans, while others formed in shallow ocean basins. Less common are economically
viable deposits formed on or under surface lands in oxygen-poor conditions, such as in deep
tropical soils.77 Manganese is also known to exist on ocean floors as nodules or crusts. According
to the USGS,

71 USGS, Mineral Commodity Summaries, 2022, 2022, p. 52, at https://doi.org/10.3133/mcs2022. For additional
information on by-production or co-production of cobalt from copper ores, see Wouter Heijlen, Guy Franceschi, and
Chris Duhayon, et al., “Assessing the Adequacy of the Global Land-Based Mine Development Pipeline in the Light of
Future High-Demand Scenarios: The Case of the Battery-Metals Nickel (Ni) and Cobalt (Co),” Resources Policy, vol.
73 (2021).
72 Ibid., pp. 52-53. Due to the prominent production of cobalt in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, cobalt is
frequently considered a “conflict mineral”; for more information on conflict minerals, see CRS Report R42618,
Conflict Minerals in Central Africa: U.S. and International Responses, by Nicolas Cook.
73 Ibid., p. 52.
74 William F. Cannon, Bryn E. Kimball, and Lisa A. Corathers, “Chapter L—Manganese,” in Critical Mineral
Resources of the United States—Economic and Environmental Geology and Prospects for Future Supply, USGS, ed.
Klaus J. Schulz, John H. DeYoung, Jr., Robert R. Seal II, and Dwight C. Bradley (2017), p. L4, at https://doi.org/
10.3133/pp1802L.
75 Ibid., p. L1.
76 Ibid., p. L2.
77 Ibid., pp. L6-L9.
Congressional Research Service

13

Critical Minerals in Electric Vehicle Batteries

The amount of manganese in known nodule fields dwarfs that found in traditional
continental deposits, but its availability as a source of ore is uncertain in the near term.
Considerable technological issues of mining at abyssal depths in the oceans, the economic
competitiveness of seabed mining versus traditional mining, and legal issues of ownership
and control of resources in international waters are still being addressed.78
The United States does not produce manganese ore, and it does not have any known economically
viable reserves. Manganese ore was last produced in the United States in 1970. Six companies
utilize imported manganese inputs. Manganese imports and exports are often reported in three
different commodity categories, including ores/concentrates, ferromanganese, and
silicomanganese. NIR was 100% during each of the last five years. During the period 2017-2020,
Gabon, Australia, and Georgia were predominant suppliers of various types of U.S. manganese
imports. For 2021, South Africa is estimated to have the highest worldwide mineral production of
manganese (7.4 million metric tons); total global production is estimated to be 20 million metric
tons.79
The price per metric ton of manganese averaged $5.20 in 2021. The highest price for manganese
in the last five years was $7.16 per metric ton in 2018, and its lowest price was $4.59 per metric
ton in 2020.80
Nickel
Nickel (atomic number 28), is found in the Earth’s upper continental crust at an approximate
average concentration of 44 parts per million.81 Nickel is primarily used in stainless steel; nickel
is also used in alloys (for its resistance to corrosion), coinage, plating, chemicals, and batteries.82
Nickel can be found in different ore types. According to the USGS,
The bulk of the nickel mined comes from two types of ore deposits: laterites where the
principal ore minerals are nickeliferous limonite ... and garnierite (a hydrous nickel
silicate), or magmatic sulfide deposits where the principal ore mineral is pentlandite....
Nickel sulfide deposits are generally associated with iron- and magnesium-rich rocks called
ultramafics and can be found in both volcanic and plutonic settings. Many of the sulfide
deposits occur at great depth. Laterites are formed by the weathering of ultramafic rocks
and are a near-surface phenomenon.83
The United States has one mining operation that produces a nickel concentrate, Eagle Mine
owned by Lundin Mining in Michigan. Ore containing nickel and copper from Eagle Mine is
trucked to the Humboldt mill, where it is processed into separate concentrates; the concentrates
are exported for additional processing.84 Eagle Mine has indicated and inferred nickel resources
of 177,900 metric tons.85 The USGS also reports that the United States has one operation

78 Ibid., p. L10.
79 USGS, Mineral Commodity Summaries, 2022, 2022, pp. 106-107, at https://doi.org/10.3133/mcs2022.
80 Ibid., p. 106.
81 Scott McLennan, “Relationships Between the Trace Element Composition of Sedimentary Rocks and Upper
Continental Crust,” Geochemistry Geophysics Geosystems, vol. 2 (2001).
82 USGS, “Nickel Statistics and Information,” at https://www.usgs.gov/centers/national-minerals-information-center/
nickel-statistics-and-information.
83 Ibid.
84 Lundin Mining, “Eagle,” at https://lundinmining.com/operations/eagle/.
85 Lundin Mining Corporation, Technical Report on the Eagle Mine, Michigan, USA, Technical Report NI 43-101,
2017, at https://lundinmining.com/site/assets/files/3640/2017-04-26-eagle-ni-43-101.pdf, p. 1-3.
Congressional Research Service

14

Critical Minerals in Electric Vehicle Batteries

recovering nickel from mine tailings, and one smelting operation producing some nickel
products.86
Total domestic nickel mining production during 2021 is estimated to be 18,000 metric tons;
USGS withheld additional byproduct production values to avoid disclosing company proprietary
data. Nickel imports during 2021 are estimated to be 145,024 metric tons. Exports of nickel in
2021 are estimated to be 54,000 metric tons. NIR was 48% in 2021, the lowest in the last five
years; the highest NIR was 52% in 2018. During the period 2017-2020, Canada was the largest
supplier of various types of U.S. nickel imports. For 2021, Indonesia is estimated to have the
highest worldwide mineral production of nickel (1 million metric tons); total global production is
estimated to be 2.7 million metric tons.87
The price per metric ton of nickel averaged $18,000 in 2021, which was the highest price in the
last five years. Nickel’s lowest price in the last five years was $10,403 per metric ton in 2017.88
Graphite (Carbon)
Carbon (atomic number 12) can occur naturally as—or be transformed into—a crystalline
structure called graphite. Natural graphite and synthetic graphite are forms of pure carbon.89
Carbon has an estimated crustal concentration between 180 and 270 parts per million, and it can
occur as carbonate minerals (80%-90%), dissolved in the atmosphere and oceans, and in living or
fossilized organisms. Natural graphite is estimated to be less than 0.5% of the crustal
concentration of carbon.90
Graphite forms include fine powders, flakes, and lumps. Natural graphite is commonly grouped
into three commercial commodities or categories, based on crystallinity, grain size, and
morphology. The three commodity categories of graphite are amorphous, crystalline (flake), and
crystalline (lump or chip). Synthetic graphite can be manufactured for use in any of these
commodity groups. Graphite is used in many applications, including electronics, lubricants,
metallurgy, steelmaking, fuel cells, batteries, and lightweight high-strength composite
applications. Natural graphite is typically used in most applications, including EV batteries, due
to its cost advantage; the price of synthetic graphite can be multiples of the price of natural
graphite.91
Graphite can be found in different ore types. According to the USGS,

86 USGS, Mineral Commodity Summaries, 2022, 2022, p. 114, at https://doi.org/10.3133/mcs2022.
87 USGS, Mineral Commodity Summaries, 2022, 2022, pp. 114-115, at https://doi.org/10.3133/mcs2022.
88 Ibid., p. 114.
89 For more information on synthetic graphite and how it can be produced from coal, see Ming Shi, Changlei Song, and
Zige Tai, et al., “Coal-Derived Synthetic Graphite with High Specific Capacity and Excellent Cyclic Stability as Anode
Material for Lithium-Ion Batteries,” Fuel, vol. 292 (2021), Article 120250. Another overview of synthetic graphite is
provided by a synthetic graphite manufacturer; see Asbury Carbons, “Synthetic Graphite,” at https://asbury.com/
resources/education/science-of-graphite/synthetic-graphite/.
90 Gilpin R. Robinson, Jr., Jane M. Hammarstrom, and Donald W. Olson, “Chapter J—Graphite,” in Critical Mineral
Resources of the United States—Economic and Environmental Geology and Prospects for Future Supply, USGS, ed.
Klaus J. Schulz, John H. DeYoung, Jr., Robert R. Seal II, and Dwight C. Bradley (2017), p. J5, at https://doi.org/
10.3133/pp1802F.
91 Ibid., pp. J1-J2.
Congressional Research Service

15

Critical Minerals in Electric Vehicle Batteries

Natural graphite is mined from deposits in metamorphic rocks, such as marble, schist, and
gneiss, and from accumulations in vein deposits. Natural graphite typically forms as a result
of metamorphism ... of accumulations of organic matter in sedimentary rocks.92
Thermally metamorphosed coal is the usual source of amorphous graphite. Disseminated
crystalline flake graphite is mined from carbonaceous metamorphic rocks, and lump or
chip graphite is mined from veins in high-grade metamorphic regions.93
According to USGS, the United States did not mine any natural graphite in 2021, and no mineral
reserves are indicated.94 One company, Graphite One, reports plans to develop an integrated
natural graphite mine and extraction facility on 28,160 acres of state lands in Alaska.95 Another
company, Westwater Resources, reports plans to develop an integrated natural graphite mine and
extraction facility on 41,965 acres of private land in Alabama.96
The USGS indicates that recycling graphite is feasible, but low prices and ample supply limit
recycling activities; information on domestic recycling is not available.97 A report from the
Bureau of Mines in 1994 describes
a processing method developed by the U.S. Bureau of Mines to produce high quality flake
graphite from the steelmaking waste known as kish.... It is estimated that the graphite
content of kish discarded by U.S. steel plants is more than sufficient to meet the total U.S.
demand for flake graphite. That need is now filled by natural graphite from foreign
sources.98
Imports of natural graphite during 2021 are estimated to be 53,000 metric tons, and natural
graphite exports in 2021 are estimated to be 8,400 metric tons. NIR on natural graphite was
calculated to be 100%. During the period 2017-2020, China was the largest supplier of U.S.
natural graphite imports (33%). For 2021, China is estimated to have the highest worldwide
production of natural graphite (820,000 metric tons); total global production is estimated to be
1,000,000 metric tons.99
The price of natural graphite flake, which represented 57% of imports in 2021, averaged $1,600
per ton in 2021. This was the highest price for natural graphite flake in the last five years. The
lowest price in the last five years for natural graphite flake was $1,350 per ton in 2019.100

92 Ibid., p. J3.
93 Ibid., p. J1.
94 USGS, Mineral Commodity Summaries, 2022, 2022, pp. 74-75, at https://doi.org/10.3133/mcs2022.
95 Natalie King, Chris Valorose, and William Ellis, 2019 NI 43-101 Mineral Resource Update for Graphite Creek,
Seward Peninsula, Alaska, USA, Alaska Earth Sciences, Inc., 2019, p. 18 (available among company associated
documents hosted by Sedar, at https://www.sedar.com/DisplayCompanyDocuments.do?lang=EN&issuerNo=
00025247).
96 WestWater Resources, Coosa Graphite Project Business Plan, 2020, p. 88, at http://westwaterresources.net/wp-
content/uploads/2021/01/Westwater-Resources-Business-Plan-October-2020-public-V10.pdf.
97 USGS, Mineral Commodity Summaries, 2022, 2022, p. 74, at https://doi.org/10.3133/mcs2022.
98 P. D. Laverty, L. J. Nicks, and L. A. Walters, Recovery of Flake Graphite From Steelmaking, U.S. Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Mines, Report of Investigations 9512, 1994, p. 1, at https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/10221/
cdc_10221_DS1.
99 USGS, Mineral Commodity Summaries, 2022, 2022, pp. 74-75, at https://doi.org/10.3133/mcs2022.
100 Ibid., p. 74.
Congressional Research Service

16

Critical Minerals in Electric Vehicle Batteries

Secondary Mineral Supply
Secondary mineral supply includes supply paths for minerals from sources other than mining,
namely from recycling. The minerals contained in EV batteries could be extracted and reused
(i.e., recycled) for new batteries, if the process is economically viable.101 The growing number of
EV batteries expected to reach their end of life (EOL) represents opportunities and challenges.
Domestically, 200,000 metric tons of EV batteries are expected to reach EOL by 2027, or 800,000
metric tons globally that year, with accelerating growth as EV penetrate vehicle markets.102 An
EV battery that has reached its EOL may be suitable for applications other than in a vehicle; such
uses are commonly called “second life” uses.
Conceptually, the steps involved in recycling the minerals in EV batteries can be grouped as
follows: collection, separation, and extraction.103 The collection step involves physically
aggregating batteries that have reached the end of their useful life. This step requires that the
battery be removed from the vehicle, and that it be transported to the battery recycling facility;
transporting lithium-ion batteries can be dangerous and is often regulated.104 The separation step
involves physical separation of the battery components through mechanical grinding or shredding
of the entire EV battery. Once ground, the cathode and anode material (commonly called black
mass) can be separated from plastics, copper, aluminum, and other materials. The extraction step
involves pyrometallurgy and/or hydrometallurgy to chemically extract the targeted mineral(s)
from the battery cell material.105
Some groups have noted some of the challenges and opportunities related to recycling of EV
batteries and of the minerals they contain.106 One review of the literature on these challenges and
opportunities notes that

101 Examples of studies of recycling the following minerals from EV batteries include, for all five minerals: Chengetai
Portia Makwarimba, Minghui Tang, and Yaqi Peng, et al., “Assessment of Recycling Methods and Processes for
Lithium-Ion Batteries,” iScience, vol. 25 (2022), Article 104321; for cobalt and nickel: Guillermo Alvial-Hein, Harshit
Mahandra, and Ahmad Ghahreman, “Separation and Recovery of Cobalt and Nickel from End of Life Products via
Solvent Extraction Technique: A Review,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 297 (2021), Article 126592; for
manganese: Xin Sun, Han Hao, and Zongwei Liu, et al., “Insights into the Global Flow Pattern of Manganese,”
Resources Policy, vol. 65 (2020), Article 101578; for graphite: Qian Cheng, Barbara Marchetti, and Xuanyi Chen, et
al., “Separation, Purification, Regeneration and Utilization of Graphite Recovered from Spent Lithium-Ion Batteries—
A Review,” Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering, vol. 10 (2022), Article 107312.
102 Qiang Dai, Jeffrey Spangenberger, and Shabbir Ahmed, et al., EverBatt: A Closed-Loop Battery Recycling Cost and
Environmental Impacts Model, ANL, ANL-19/16, 2019, at https://doi.org/10.2172/1530874.
103 These generalized steps apply to commercially available recycling operations. Direct recycling of EV batteries,
which maintains the cathode and anode material intact (i.e., chemical extraction of the minerals is not needed), is
technically feasible but no examples of commercial use can be identified. For more information on the processes used
to recycle EV batteries, see Chengetai Portia Makwarimba, Minghui Tang, and Yaqi Peng, et al., “Assessment of
Recycling Methods and Processes for Lithium-Ion Batteries,” iScience, vol. 25 (2022), Article 104321.
104 For example, the U.S. Department of Transportation regulates lithium-ion batteries as a hazardous material (Pipeline
and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, “Transporting Lithium Batteries,” at https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/
lithiumbatteries).
105 For more information on technical and environmental aspects of industrial processes available to recycle minerals
from EV batteries, see Mohammad Abdelbaky, Lilian Schwich, and Eleonora Crenna, et al., “Comparing the
Environmental Performance of Industrial Recycling Routes for Lithium Nickel-Cobalt-Manganese Oxide 111 Vehicle
Batteries,” Procedia CIRP, vol. 98 (2021), pp. 97-102.
106 For a discussion of the recycling of various metals, see IEA, The Role of Critical Minerals in Clean Energy
Transitions, 2021, pp. 175-180; and Kirsten Hund, Daniele La Porta, and Thao P. Fabregas, et al., Minerals for Climate
Action: The Mineral Intensity of the Clean Energy Transition, World Bank Group, 2020, p. 63, at
https://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/961711588875536384/Minerals-for-Climate-Action-The-Mineral-Intensity-of-the-
Congressional Research Service

17

Critical Minerals in Electric Vehicle Batteries

various process combinations of mechanical, pyrolytic and hydrometallurgical recycling
techniques are possible to improve metal separation from polymer battery components....
All reports stressed the importance to consider the entire product life cycle and value chain
of LIBs [lithium-ion batteries]: from battery design and manufacturing to waste collection
and recycling.107
Noting the overall battery life cycle in conjunction with possible recycling processes highlights
the role of economic viability: even if technologies exist that can extract minerals from recycled
batteries, only those that are economically viable will be employed. The economic viability of
recycling battery minerals can be affected by the battery pack’s design: if the pack is difficult
(i.e., expensive) to disassemble, shred, or process, or if disassembling the pack generates costly
waste streams, the overall costs of recycling may exceed the revenues expected from the process,
rendering the overall process uneconomical.108 Alternatively, a battery pack optimized for
recycling could be too expensive to compete with other designs.109
In addition to recycling lithium-ion batteries, cobalt, nickel, manganese, and graphite could be
recycled from other products and directed towards EV battery manufacturing. Lithium, however,
does not offer expected opportunities for recycling from sources other than batteries, as other uses
of lithium, such as in ceramic glazing and glass manufacturing, do not readily lend themselves to
recycling.110
The current varied uses of nickel, with its primary use in metal alloys, suggest that recycling
could contribute to sources of nickel for future battery inputs. The Nickel Institute promotes
nickel’s high efficiency in recycling processes, and it highlights further opportunities for
recycling: 17% of nickel is currently destined to landfills.111 Cobalt consumption, while more
concentrated in batteries than nickel, also offers sources of battery inputs from recycled products.
Solvent extraction is commonly used to recover nickel and cobalt from battery materials, and its
use could be expanded to recover these elements from other waste products.112 Research into

Clean-Energy-Transition. For a discussion of some EV battery recycling policies in various countries, see IEA, Global
EV Outlook 2022, 2022, pp. 161-66.
107 Stefan Windisch-Kern, Eva Gerold, and Thomas Nigl, et al., “Recycling Chains for Lithium-Ion Batteries: A
Critical Examination of Current Challenges, Opportunities and Process Dependencies,” Waste Management, vol. 138
(2022), p. 126.
108 For a study that “has looked at 44 commercial [lithium-ion battery] recyclers and assessed their recycling and
reclamation processes,” see Roberto Sommerville, Pengcheng Zhu, and Mohammad Ali Rajaeifar, et al., “A Qualitative
Assessment of Lithium Ion Battery Recycling Processes,” Resources, Conservation & Recycling, vol. 165 (2021),
Article 105219, p. 1. For a study of the “a need to develop technology to enable a resource-efficient and economically
feasible recycling system for lithium-ion batteries and ... compares these [recycling] processes on technical and
economic bases,” see Linda Gaines, Lithium-Ion Battery Recycling Processes: Research Towards a Sustainable
Course, ANL, 2018, at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susmat.2018.e00068. For a life cycle analysis of lithium-ion battery
recycling, see Mohammad Abdelbaky, Lilian Schwich, and Eleonora Crenna, et al., “Comparing the Environmental
Performance of Industrial Recycling Routes for Lithium Nickel-Cobalt-Manganese Oxide 111 Vehicle Batteries,”
Procedia CIRP, vol. 98 (2021), pp. 97-102.
109 An example of a federally funded research consortium in DOE’s Vehicle Technologies Office is the ReCell Center,
which is targeting an “economic and environmentally sound recycling process that can be adopted by industry for
lithium-ion and future battery chemistries,” (ReCell Center, “About,” at https://recellcenter.org/about/).
110 Alessio Miatto, Barbara K. Reck, and James West, et al., “The Rise and Fall of American Lithium,” Resources,
Conservation & Recycling, vol. 162 (2020), Article 105034, p. 5.
111 “Nickel Recycling,” Nickel Institute, at https://nickelinstitute.org/policy/nickel-life-cycle-management/nickel-
recycling/.
112 Guillermo Alvial-Hein, Harshit Mahandra, and Ahmad Ghahreman, “Separation and Recovery of Cobalt and Nickel
from End of Life Products via Solvent Extraction Technique: A Review,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 297
(2021), Article 126592.
Congressional Research Service

18

Critical Minerals in Electric Vehicle Batteries

methods beyond solvent extraction demonstrates that adsorption-based methods could be viable
for the recovery of nickel from some recycled material leachates.113 EVs, excluding their
batteries, also represent a source of recyclable materials for potential inputs to EV batteries given
the use of various metal alloys, which can include nickel and manganese, among other
elements.114
Generally, manganese is not currently recycled from non-battery products, other than through the
recycling of iron and steel scrap: when iron and steel scrap are recycled, any contained
manganese is also recycled. One study of global manganese production notes “Owing to the low
manganese content of non-alloy and non-battery applications, it is not feasible to recover
manganese from them.”115
The USGS notes that graphite can be and is recycled from various products, but it is not currently
recycled from kish (a waste product from steelmaking).116 Some research highlights process
improvements that would facilitate the use of graphite recycled from aluminum smelters in EV
battery anodes.117 Other research highlights potential improvements in the process to recycle
graphite from refractory bricks used in steelmaking.118
Legislative Topics Related to EV Battery Minerals
Other sections of this report focus on five critical minerals used in currently available EV
batteries. In the discussion of legislative options, these five minerals are not distinguished: the
options could be applied to any mineral of interest to Congress.
Congress has options to support or enhance the production of some domestic minerals for use in
EV batteries, as some minerals used in EV batteries are not currently being produced
domestically. Some options Congress could consider include enhancing mapping of domestic
mineral resources; increasing mining on federal lands; tax incentives and import tariffs to
enhance domestic mineral production; and funding of private and public research or production,
among others.
Other options could focus on increasing access to critical minerals not available domestically,
including diplomacy initiatives, seabed mining in international waters, and federal or private
acquisition of foreign deposits. Congress could consider options that encourage or discourage the
adoption of EVs, which could alter demand for the critical minerals used in EV batteries.119 These
options are not discussed further in this report.

113 Funmilola Odegbemi, Gideon A. Idowu, and Albert O. Adebayo, “Nickel Recovery from Spent Nickel-Metal
Hydride Batteries Using LIX-84I-Impregnated Activated Charcoal,” Environmental Nanotechnology, Monitoring &
Management, vol. 15 (2021), Article 100452.
114 Ben Jones, Robert J.R. Elliott, and Viet Nguyen-Tien, “The EV Revolution: The Road Ahead for Critical Raw
Materials Demand,” Applied Energy, vol. 280 (2020), Article 115072.
115 Xin Sun, Han Hao, and Zongwei Liu, et al., “Insights into the Global Flow Pattern of Manganese,” Resources
Policy, vol. 65 (2020), Article 101578, p. 6.
116 USGS, Mineral Commodity Summaries, 2022, 2022, p. 74, at https://doi.org/10.3133/mcs2022.
117 Thomas J. Robshaw, Daniel Atkinson, and Jonathan R. Howse, et al., “Recycling Graphite from Waste Aluminium
Smelter Spent Pot Lining into Lithium-Ion Battery Electrode Feedstock,” Cleaner Production Letters, vol. 2 (2022),
Article 100004.
118 Liesbeth Horckmans, Peter Nielsen, and Philippe Dierckx, et al., “Recycling of Refractory Bricks Used in Basic
Steelmaking: A Review,” Resources, Conservation & Recycling, vol. 140 (2019), pp. 297-304.
119 Two examples of provisions enacted to encourage adoption of EVs can be found in the Infrastructure Investment
Congressional Research Service

19

Critical Minerals in Electric Vehicle Batteries

Enhanced Domestic Geological Mapping Efforts
Enhanced geological mapping, which can employ technologies such as geophysical mapping (the
mapping of surface and subsurface materials), geospatial mapping (three-dimensional geological
mapping), or updating prior geological studies, can provide more information on potential
mineral deposits. This information can be used to more efficiently target mineral exploration
efforts. The use of federal resources to provide increased knowledge of mineral resources may
reduce the cost of some mineral exploration steps by private companies seeking new deposits.
Use of federal resources for these activities could be seen as benefitting mining companies rather
than the public, as the information gathered can reduce their exploration costs. However, these
mapping activities could lead to the discovery of mineral deposits on private lands, and can
provide non-mineral related benefits by also providing information on groundwater resources and
geologic hazards.120
Some bills introduced in the 117th Congress would promote enhanced geological mapping of
domestic mineral resources.121 Congress included some of the provisions in these bills in the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58).122 For example, Section 40201 of the
IIJA establishes the Earth Mapping Resources Initiative within the USGS, with the purpose of
accelerating efforts to provide integrated topographic, geologic, geochemical, and geophysical
mapping, among other actions.123 Provisions in this section prioritize critical minerals in this
program and require data collection on abandoned mine waste sites. Appropriations totaling $320
million for fiscal years 2022 through 2026 for this section are provided by Division J, Title VI.
Section 40202 of the IIJA amends the National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-285) to
establish an abandoned mine land and waste component within the USGS’s National Cooperative
Geologic Mapping Program, among other actions.
Mining on Federal Lands
Mining on federal lands is a topic often mentioned in regards to domestic supply of critical
minerals.124 The federal mineral estate covers 712 million acres, approximately 30% of the total
domestic surface area (2.4 billion acres).125 Not all of the federal mineral estate is open to mineral

and Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58), including Section 11401, “Grants for Charging and Fueling Infrastructure,” which
establishes a grant program for the installation of EV charging stations and other vehicle refueling stations; and Section
71101, “Clean School Bus Program,” which establishes a grant program to replace existing school buses with electric
school buses or school buses using specified alternative fuel types.
120 Warren Day, The Earth Mapping Resources Initiative (Earth MRI): Mapping the Nation’s Critical Mineral
Resources, U.S. Geological Survey, Fact Sheet 2019–3007, 2019, at https://doi.org/10.3133/fs20193007.
121 For example, see the following bills introduced in the 117th Congress: H.R. 2153, Securing American Leadership in
Science and Technology Act of 2021; H.R. 2225, National Science Foundation for the Future Act; H.R. 2637,
American Critical Mineral Independence Act of 2021; and S. 381, National Ocean Exploration Act.
122 For more information on these and related sections in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, see CRS Report
R47034, Energy and Minerals Provisions in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58), coordinated by
Brent D. Yacobucci. For more information on the USGS provisions in the IIJA and USGS activities, congressional
clients can contact Anna Normand.
123 For more information on the Earth Mapping Resources Initiative, see USGS, “Earth Mapping Resources Initiative
(Earth MRI),” at https://www.usgs.gov/special-topics/earth-mri.
124 For an overview of mining on public lands, see CRS Report R46278, Policy Topics and Background Related to
Mining on Federal Lands, by Brandon S. Tracy.
125 U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), Public Land Statistics 2020, vol. 205, 2021, pp. 1-8, at https://www.blm.gov/
sites/blm.gov/files/docs/2021-08/PublicLandStatistics2020.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

20

Critical Minerals in Electric Vehicle Batteries

entry (i.e., new mining operations), and economically viable mineral deposits are not necessarily
found on these lands. When mining of non-leasable minerals occurs on public domain lands,
mineral production is not reported to the federal government.126
Some Members of Congress note the potential importance of increasing mineral production on
federal lands as a means of addressing the supply of some critical minerals, including some of
those needed for EV batteries.127 Others note that the General Mining Law of 1872, which covers
mining of non-leasable minerals on public lands, does not provide a fair return to American
citizens, as the law does not authorize collection of royalties on the extraction of these
minerals.128 For critical mineral mining operations, Section 40206 of the IIJA includes provisions
seeking to complete the federal permitting and review process with maximum efficiency and
effectiveness.129
Tax Incentives and Import Tariffs for Domestic Mineral Production
One potential option to increase domestic mineral production could be to reduce taxes assessed
on related commercial activities. Investments in sectors with high initial costs, such as mines and
ore refining operations, may be accelerated if tax incentives allow for earlier expected
profitability. An example of this in current law is the percentage depletion allowance, where
taxpayers are allowed a depletion deduction that is a percentage of gross revenue.130 The
percentage depletion rate is 22% for lithium, cobalt, manganese, nickel, and graphite. Other tax
incentives could include tax credits for capital investments or special treatment allowing for
accelerated depreciation.131
Another legislative option to potentially increase domestic critical mineral production could
include imposition of a federal excise tax (i.e., a tariff) on targeted imported critical minerals or
on targeted products containing critical minerals. Use of excise taxes can be challenging due to

126 For a comparison between locatable and leasable mining operations on federal lands, see GAO, Federal Land
Management: Key Differences and Stakeholder Views of the Federal Systems Used to Manage Hardrock Mining,
GAO-21-299, 2021, at https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-21-299.
127 For examples of introduced legislation, see H.R. 2604, Accessing America’s Critical Minerals Act of 2021, and
H.R. 2637, American Critical Mineral Independence Act of 2021. Another example includes a letter sent from all
Republicans on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee to the President, including the recommendation to
“expedite the approval of domestic mines, including mines on federal lands, which would produce critical minerals.... ”
(United States Senator for Alaska Lisa Murkowski, “ENR Republicans to Biden: Restore America’s Energy
Dominance,” press release, March 2, 2022, at https://www.murkowski.senate.gov/press/release/enr-republicans-to-
biden-restore-americas-energy-dominance).
128 The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 covers the leasing of coal, oil, natural gas, and certain other minerals (codified at
30 U.S.C. §§181 et seq.). If minerals indicated in the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 are found on certain acquired federal
lands, they are covered by the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands (codified at 30 U.S.C. §§351 et seq.). Minerals
not covered by these mineral leasing laws may be subject to leasing if they are found on certain federal lands (see 43
C.F.R. §3503.13). Non-leasable minerals are those covered by the General Mining Law of 1872. See H.R. 7580, Clean
Energy Minerals Reform Act of 2022, for an example of introduced legislation that intends to align mining on public
lands with the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, including by assessing a royalty rate on all mineral production.
129 Codified at 30 U.S.C. §1607.
130 Codified at 26 U.S.C. §613. Costs of investing in mineral production could be recovered using cost depletion, where
a taxpayer determines annual depletion deductions based on the amount or value of the resource being extracted, as
opposed to revenue from the resource.
131 For additional information on tax policy and EVs, see CRS Report R45747, Vehicle Electrification: Federal and
State Issues Affecting Deployment, by Bill Canis, Corrie E. Clark, and Molly F. Sherlock, and CRS In Focus IF11017,
The Plug-In Electric Vehicle Tax Credit, by Molly F. Sherlock.
Congressional Research Service

21

Critical Minerals in Electric Vehicle Batteries

the potential for domestic market-distorting effects, especially in the mining sector where new or
increased domestic production may not be readily feasible.132
Federal Grants, Loans, and Research for Domestic Mineral
Production
Federal loans and grants can be issued to private entities with the intent of increasing domestic
production of critical minerals. Grants and loans can help businesses overcome certain financial
constraints, which could increase mineral production. However, the mining and mineral
extraction sector often faces long development time frames, due in part to project complexities
and costs. These and other factors can result in loans and grants being issued to entities that are
ultimately unsuccessful, or to those that would have been successful without the financial
assistance.
Funding research to lower the costs of extracting critical minerals from ore or recycled products
is a potential means of increasing domestic critical mineral supply. Research funding, often
awarded through grant programs, can support the development of new processes or technologies
related to the extraction and processing of critical minerals. Such new processes and technologies
act to reduce the overall production costs, which can encourage additional production or allow a
previously uneconomic deposit to be developed. Federally funded research can also identify new
substitution possibilities among minerals, which can lead to equivalent or similar products
containing fewer critical minerals. Federally funded research programs can draw criticism, as
there are no guarantees to ensure successful development of new processes or technologies.
Additional criticism could focus on these uses of federal funds, which can increase private sector
profits.
Sections 40207, 40208, and 40210 in the IIJA direct the Secretary of Energy to award over $6
billion (appropriations provided in Division J) in grants related to the research, supply,
processing, and recycling of battery critical materials and minerals, among other aspects. Section
40401 amends the DOE Title XVII loan guarantee program133 to consider projects that increase
the supply of domestically produced critical minerals.134 Some aspects of these programs are to
encourage increased production using existing technologies, while other aspects are to encourage
the development or demonstration of new technologies.
In addition to new programs, Congress continues to fund efforts to enhance mineral extraction
technologies through ongoing research programs, including through the DOE and the National
Science Foundation (NSF), among others.135 Examples of DOE research funding for critical
mineral research programs and initiatives include the Argonne National Laboratory, the Critical
Materials Institute (at Ames National Laboratory), and the National Energy Technologies
Laboratory.136

132 For more information on excise taxes, see CRS Report R46938, Federal Excise Taxes: Background and General
Analysis, by Anthony A. Cilluffo.
133 42 U.S.C. §§16511 et seq. For more information about the program, see CRS Insight IN11432, Department of
Energy Loan Programs: Title XVII Innovative Technology Loan Guarantees, by Phillip Brown et al.
134 For more information on these sections in the IIJA, see CRS Report R47034, Energy and Minerals Provisions in the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58), coordinated by Brent D. Yacobucci.
135 For example appropriations for DOE and for the National Science Foundation, see P.L. 117-103.
136 Example programs conducting critical mineral research with potential application to EVs include ANL, “Batteries
and Fuel Cells” (at https://www.anl.gov/topic/science-technology/batteries-and-fuel-cells); Ames Laboratory, “Critical
Congressional Research Service

22

Critical Minerals in Electric Vehicle Batteries

Materials Institute” (at https://www.ameslab.gov/cmi/); and NETL, “Critical Minerals Sustainability” (at
https://netl.doe.gov/coal/rare-earth-elements).
Congressional Research Service

23

Critical Minerals in Electric Vehicle Batteries

Author Information

Brandon S. Tracy

Analyst in Energy Policy

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R47227 · VERSION 1 · NEW
24

Download PDF

Download EPUB

Revision History

Aug. 29, 2022

HTML · PDF

Metadata

Topic areas

Energy Policy

Report Type: CRS Report

Source: CRSReports.Congress.gov

Raw Metadata: JSON