[Senate Hearing 117-294]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                        S. Hrg. 117-294

                THE SCOPE AND SCALE OF CRITICAL MINERAL 
               DEMAND AND RECYCLING OF CRITICAL MINERALS

=======================================================================

                                 HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                              COMMITTEE ON
                      ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                             APRIL 7, 2022

                               __________


[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                       Printed for the use of the
               Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov        
        
                                __________

                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
47-936                      WASHINGTON : 2024                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------           
       
               COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

                JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia, Chairman
RON WYDEN, Oregon                    JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington           JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont             MIKE LEE, Utah
MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico          STEVE DAINES, Montana
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii              LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine            JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada       JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma
MARK KELLY, Arizona                  BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana
JOHN W. HICKENLOOPER, Colorado       CINDY HYDE-SMITH, Mississippi
                                     ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas

                      Renae Black, Staff Director
                      Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
                Zahava Urecki, Professional Staff Member
                Peter Stahley, Professional Staff Member
             Richard M. Russell, Republican Staff Director
              Matthew H. Leggett, Republican Chief Counsel
                     Kate Farr, Republican Counsel
           Jake McCurdy, Republican Professional Staff Member
                            
                            
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                   Page
Barrasso, Hon. John, Ranking Member and a U.S. Senator from 
  Wyoming........................................................     1
Manchin III, Hon. Joe, Chairman and a U.S. Senator from West 
  Virginia.......................................................     3
Cortez Masto, Hon. Catherine, a U.S. Senator from Nevada.........     8

                               WITNESSES

Howell, David, Acting Director and Principal Deputy Director, 
  Office of Manufacturing and Energy Supply Chains and Director, 
  Vehicle Technologies Office, U.S. Department of Energy.........     9
Wood, Dr. Duncan Robert, Vice President, Strategy and New 
  Initiatives, Wilson Center.....................................    24
Forney III, R. Scott, President, General Atomics, Electromagnetic 
  Systems Group..................................................    32
Britton, Joe, Executive Director, Zero Emission Transportation 
  Association....................................................    40
Straubel, J.B., Founder and CEO, Redwood Materials...............    49

          ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

Barrasso, Hon. John:
    Opening Statement............................................     1
    Chart depicting annual global demand for critical minerals...     2
Britton, Joe:
    Opening Statement............................................    40
    Written Testimony............................................    42
    Responses to Questions for the Record........................   104
Cassidy, Hon. Bill:
    Report entitled ``Resetting American Energy and Climate 
      Policy''...................................................    68
Cortez Masto, Hon. Catherine:
    Introductory Statement.......................................     8
Daines, Hon. Steve:
    Front pages from ten environmental reports...................   110
Forney III, R. Scott:
    Opening Statement............................................    32
    Written Testimony............................................    34
    Questions for the Record.....................................   103
Howell, David:
    Opening Statement............................................     9
    Written Testimony............................................    12
    Responses to Questions for the Record........................    91
IperionX:
    Letter for the Record dated April 13, 2022...................   120
    Letter for the Record dated April 20, 2022...................   123
Jensen, Mark:
    Statement for the Record.....................................   126
Manchin III, Hon. Joe:
    Opening Statement............................................     3
    Chart depicting the lithium-based battery supply chain.......     4
    Chart showing efficiency of critical mineral recycling.......     7
National Association of Manufacturers:
    Letter for the Record........................................   129
National Mining Association:
    Statement for the Record.....................................   131
Straubel, J.B.:
    Opening Statement............................................    49
    Written Testimony............................................    51
    Questions for the Record.....................................   109
Wood, Dr. Duncan Robert:
    Opening Statement............................................    24
    Written Testimony............................................    26
    Questions for the Record.....................................   102

 
                         THE SCOPE AND SCALE OF
                      CRITICAL MINERAL DEMAND AND
                     RECYCLING OF CRITICAL MINERALS

                              ----------                              


                        THURSDAY, APRIL 7, 2022

                                       U.S. Senate,
                 Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m. in 
Room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Joe Manchin 
III, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
    The Chairman. The Committee will come to order. We are 
going to reverse this a little bit because of all of our votes 
coming up. You will be seeing us come and go. So Senator 
Barrasso is going to give his opening statement before mine. He 
is going to leave and vote, and I will give mine, and we will 
get started, and we are going to have you all have yours. So 
don't think that we are being disrespectful. We are just so 
sorry things--we have to go vote.
    So, with that being said, Senator Barrasso.

           OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING

    Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, 
and thanks for holding today's very important hearing. You 
know, last week, this Committee held a hearing on the supply of 
critical minerals. We discussed how President Biden's decision 
to cancel leases and delay permits for critical minerals is 
putting his own climate goals at risk. His decisions are also 
putting America's energy and national security at risk. Today, 
we are going to discuss the industries that are driving demand 
for critical minerals. When President Biden took office, he 
committed the United States to the Paris Climate Accord. When 
doing so, he announced sharp greenhouse gas emission reduction 
targets. To accomplish these goals, the President wants to 
increase, by vast amounts, the number of electric vehicles on 
the road and the number of wind turbines, batteries, and solar 
panels used to generate electricity.
    Whether you agree or disagree with the President's goals, 
there is no dispute that they will dramatically increase the 
demand for critical minerals. Last year, the International 
Energy Agency published a report on the future demand for 
critical minerals.
    [Chart depicting annual global demand for critical minerals 
follows:]
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Senator Barrasso. It projects that by the year 2040, the 
demand for rare earth minerals will increase by 700 percent. 
The demand for nickel will increase by 1,900 percent. The 
demand for cobalt will increase by 2,100 percent. The demand 
for graphite will increase by 2,500 percent. And the demand for 
lithium will increase by 4,200 percent. If you look at where we 
are in terms of annual versus global demand, 2020 to 2040. The 
International Energy Agency is not alone. The World Bank 
recently looked at future demand for copper. It found that to 
meet the world's demand for copper in the next 25 years, the 
world will have to mine the same amount of copper that has been 
mined in the last 5,000 years. Now, these are astonishing 
figures that neither President Biden nor those within his 
Administration are willing to face head-on. So, where exactly 
would this growth in demand for critical minerals come from? 
Well, according to the International Energy Agency, most of it 
will come from manufacturers of solar and wind turbines, 
manufacturers of electric vehicle batteries and batteries to 
store wind and solar energy, and manufacturers of electric 
transmission and distribution components.
    Another important question to ask is, what does this growth 
in demand for these critical minerals mean for existing users 
of critical minerals? For example, today the defense sector is 
a key source of mineral demand. According to the National 
Mining Association, the Department of Defense uses nearly 
750,000 tons of minerals each year. These minerals are 
absolutely essential to our national security and the security 
of our allies. For that reason, I am grateful that Scott Forney 
is here today, President of General Atomics, the 
Electromagnetic Systems Group, for his willingness to testify. 
General Atomics has partnered with the Bear Lodge Rare Earth 
mine project located in Northeast Wyoming. Once operational, 
the mine and processing plant will be an alternative to Chinese 
rare earths. For our national and our economic security, we 
cannot afford to rely on countries such as Russia and China for 
our mineral mining and for processing needs. Cutting China and 
Russia out of global mineral supply chains will not be easy. 
Russia's state-run nickel company produces nearly 20 percent of 
the world's high-grade, battery-quality nickel supply. China 
controls over 90 percent of the global rare earth element 
market, including refining and processing.
    It is clearly time for us to get serious about expanding 
domestic mineral production. So I look forward to discussing 
these topics with our witnesses today.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.

          OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE MANCHIN III, 
                U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA

    The Chairman. We are here today for part two of an 
important discussion on how to reverse our increasing 
vulnerability associated with a critical supply chain. We are 
going to put a map up today to show you what we are dealing 
with here, and it gives you an idea of each stage of the supply 
chain as we have listed here.
    [The chart referred to follows:]
    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    The Chairman. And last week's hearing highlighted the 
challenges we face in supplying our own critical minerals in 
domestic mining, processing, and refining. Today, we are going 
to shift our discussion to what is driving the need for these 
minerals in the first place, and what kind of demand that we 
expect in the future. I think some of the illustrations and 
also some of the numbers you have heard are quite astonishing.
    This discussion would not be complete without hearing how 
we can leverage the recycling of these products and 
technologies at the end of their useful life to increase our 
domestic supply and offset some of the increasing demand. From 
the technologies needed to support military readiness and 
combat climate change, to the cell phones in our pockets or the 
cars in our driveways, critical minerals are essential to the 
life that we lead and the technologies we have come to depend 
on. Accelerating their production and establishing secure and 
dependable supply chains is vital to our energy and national 
security. That is why I was pleased to see President Biden take 
action last week to strengthen our critical minerals supply 
chain by invoking the Defense Production Act to address the 
minerals needed for advanced batteries. I am also proud of the 
work that we did in this Committee to include provisions in the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to build up our domestic 
manufacturing and recycling capabilities. While these actions 
are a crucial step forward, more action is going to be 
necessary to get supply chains, including mining, processing, 
manufacturing, and more where they need to be domestically to 
keep up with the growing demand for these critical minerals 
instead of increasing our reliance on China.
    Government support and intervention are necessary, but 
industry truly needs to be the leader in securing reliable and 
ethically sourced supplies for the materials that make up their 
products. I repeat the word ethically, because we know where a 
lot of it is coming from, and the pain and the hardships on 
people. Every company involved in the downstream manufacturing 
of products that contain critical minerals has a responsibility 
to know where their parts and materials are coming from. 
Companies must commit to building partnerships with domestic 
producers and material processors, and when they source 
overseas, transparency is a prerequisite. Manufacturing should 
be done with recycling in mind, and if there are barriers to 
that, I want to hear about them so we can get this right sooner 
rather than later. I am pleased that we are joined today by 
several witnesses who will be able to shed some light on how 
the private sector is approaching all of these challenges. 
According to the International Energy Agency, stationary and 
electric vehicle batteries will account for about half of the 
mineral demand growth from clean energy technologies over the 
next 20 years. As the sector responsible for the largest 
portion of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, there is no 
question that we need to be doing all that we can to reduce 
emissions in the transportation sector.
    EVs certainly have a role to play in addressing those 
emissions, however, with China's dominance over the critical 
minerals required for the EVs, I have grave concerns about 
moving too quickly toward an EV-only future. When it comes to 
the EV battery supply chain, China is responsible for 80 
percent of the world's battery material processing, 60 percent 
of the world's cathode production, 80 percent of the world's 
anode production, and 73 percent of the world's lithium-ion 
battery cell production. They have simply cornered the market. 
With numbers like these, it is frustrating to hear calls for a 
swifter transition to electrified transportation to reduce our 
dependence on foreign oil. We cannot replace one unreliable 
foreign supply chain with another and think it is going to 
solve our problems. That is why I also continue to advocate for 
parallel investment in hydrogen as a clean transportation fuel.
    Now, I believe that domestic mining has to play a role in 
reducing our reliance on foreign supplies of raw materials, but 
it is not the only tool that we have in our toolbox. Recycling 
provides a tremendous opportunity to avoid outsourcing the raw 
supply of critical minerals that we need while creating new 
economic opportunities right here at home. This chart shows 
that recycling is a more efficient way to recover these 
materials in some cases.
    [The chart referred to follows:]
    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    The Chairman. According to the Department of Energy, we can 
recover one ton of battery-grade lithium from only 28 tons of 
spent lithium-ion batteries compared to 750 tons of brine or 
250 tons of ore. And for cobalt, one ton of battery-grade 
cobalt only needs 5 to 15 tons of spent batteries compared to 
300 tons of ore. And all of this material can feed right back 
into the processing--the capacity that we are developing here. 
I am pleased that we are joined by Mr. Straubel of Redwood 
Materials, who can talk about the opportunities to grow this 
promising new industry.
    In the 1940s, in the wake of World War II and the Cold War, 
started kryptonite. It made its first appearance in a Superman 
comic, a rare mineral found only on the fictional planet of 
Krypton. Kryptonite is the only thing that can render the 
seemingly invulnerable Man of Steel powerless. As tensions grew 
during the Cold War, our demand for critical minerals was now 
somewhere close to where it is today, but it turns out, DC 
Comics was onto something. The more we dive into this topic of 
critical minerals, the more I am convinced that Superman is not 
the only one who can be brought to his knees by rare minerals. 
They were getting creative on this one.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. If we do not address our dependence problem 
and look for innovative ways to ensure the supply chain, it 
will compromise our energy security and handicap us in local 
marketplaces. We cannot let that happen. Now, you all feel the 
same, I am sure. I look forward to hearing from all of our 
witnesses today to understand how we can find a realistic path 
forward to continue utilizing the technologies we need without 
sacrificing our energy and national security.
    Now I am going to turn to our panel of witnesses.
    We have with us Mr. David Howell, who is Director of the 
Vehicle Technologies Office at the Department of Energy as well 
as the Department's Acting Director of the Office of 
Manufacturing and Energy Supply.
    We have Dr. Duncan Wood, who is Vice President for Strategy 
and New Initiatives at the Wilson Center.
    We have Mr. Scott Forney, President of Electromagnetic 
Systems at General Atomics.
    We have Mr. Joe Britton, who is Executive Director of the 
Zero Emissions Transportation Association.
    And we have Mr. J.B. Straubel, who is Founder and CEO of 
Redwood Materials.
    Before we turn to the witnesses for their remarks, I 
understand that Senator Cortez Masto would like to introduce 
one of our witnesses.

  INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT OF HON. CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, U.S. 
                      SENATOR FROM NEVADA

    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you 
for your creativity, or at least your staff's. Thank you to 
Ranking Member Barrasso as well for holding this important 
hearing today.
    It is my pleasure to be able to introduce J.B. Straubel, 
who is the Founder and Chief Executive Officer of Redwood 
Materials, a company that is headquartered in Carson City, 
Nevada, and focused on the recycling of lithium-ion batteries 
and reuse of lithium, cobalt, and other critical minerals in 
secondary applications. Mr. Straubel previously worked at Tesla 
for 15 years, where he served as the Co-founder and Chief 
Technology Officer. In that capacity, he led cell design, 
supply chain logistics, and the first Gigafactory concept for 
the production ramp of Tesla's Model 3 vehicle. Throughout his 
career, J.B. has played an influential role in research and 
development, in team building, and operational expansions from 
prototype cars to mass production and gigawatt-scale projects.
    I am so excited he is here to talk about what incredible 
and innovative things they are doing at Redwood Materials. We 
are so pleased he is in Nevada with his company, and I am just 
grateful, Mr. Chairman, that we are having this important 
conversation today.
    I look forward to hearing from all the panelists as well. 
Welcome.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator. We have an outstanding 
panel.
    If you all can indulge us, we are going to have to recess 
for about 10 minutes. I know that Senator Cortez Masto has to 
go vote. I have to go vote. We are waiting for Senator Barrasso 
to come back to convene, and then we will go through with your 
statements, if you don't mind.
    [RECESS.]
    Senator Barrasso [presiding]. Well, thanks so much for all 
your patience as we run back and forth and we have a number of 
votes that are happening today, but if it's all right with you, 
Mr. Howell, we will start with your testimony and then work our 
way down the panel.
    Mr. Howell. Yes, sir.
    Senator Barrasso. Thank you.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF DAVID HOWELL, ACTING DIRECTOR AND 
 PRINCIPAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANUFACTURING AND ENERGY 
 SUPPLY CHAINS AND DIRECTOR, VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES OFFICE, U.S. 
                      DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

    Mr. Howell. Chairman Manchin, Ranking Member Barrasso, and 
members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to 
testify before you today. My name is Dave Howell, and I am the 
Director of the Vehicle Technologies Office in the Department 
of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy as 
well as the Acting Director and Principal Deputy Director of 
the Office of Manufacturing and Energy Supply Chains. In 
addition to these roles, I also serve as the Chair of the 
Federal Consortia for Advanced Batteries (FCAB). FCAB brings 
together 12 federal agencies that are collaborating to ensure a 
domestic supply of lithium batteries, and are committed to 
accelerating the development of a robust and secure domestic 
industrial base.
    Climate change is one of the greatest challenges facing our 
nation and our planet today. DOE stands ready to work to 
address both the climate emergency, and also our national and 
economic security through improving our domestic supply chain 
for critical minerals and materials needed to ensure that the 
U.S. builds a 100 percent clean energy economy and reaches net-
zero emissions no later than 2050. Critical materials are a key 
building block for a transition to a resilient net-zero energy 
future, and are also subject to supply risks. The Department's 
critical materials strategy has three pillars: diversification 
of supply, development of substitutes, and recycling and 
efficient use. The Department's research, development, and 
demonstration portfolios, which include EERE's Critical 
Materials Institute, promote increasing American access to raw 
materials, lessening dependence on imports, and strengthening 
competitiveness of our domestic manufacturers at all stages of 
the supply chains for these critical materials.
    The Institute, led by Ames National Laboratory and a team 
of research partners, seeks to accelerate innovative scientific 
and technological solutions to develop resilient and secure 
supply chains for rare earth metals and other materials 
critical to the success of clean energy technologies. The DOE, 
along with the Departments of State and Defense, recently 
executed a memorandum of agreement that sets the foundation for 
a critical minerals stockpile process to support the U.S. 
transition to clean energy and national security needs. The MOA 
formalizes an interagency partnership to acquire and recycle 
selected materials for technologies that range from grid-scale 
batteries to wind turbines. Additionally, on March 31st, 
President Biden signed a Presidential Determination expanding 
the Defense Production Act to include securing a reliable and 
sustainable supply of strategic and critical materials, such as 
lithium, nickel, cobalt, graphite, and manganese for large-
capacity batteries that are essential for the automotive and 
stationary storage sectors and to the national defense. The 
Department will work closely with the Departments of Defense, 
Interior, Agriculture, and other agencies to plan and carry out 
activities necessary to build out a resilient and secure 
battery supply chain.
    Significant investments across the Department are 
addressing critical minerals and materials challenges 
associated with the important supply chains, including for 
lithium-ion batteries. EERE works to mitigate supply chain 
risks through fundamental and cross-cutting RD&D to diversify 
supply, develop alternatives, and improve reuse and recycling. 
These supply chain risk mitigation strategies are directly 
aligned with the federal strategy. The Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law includes more than $6 billion to fund 
domestic battery materials, processing, manufacturing, and 
recycling that will help improve grid resilience and scale up 
the electrification of cars, trucks, and buses.
    On February 11th, 2022, DOE issued two notices of intent to 
provide $2.9 billion to boost production of the advanced 
batteries and materials that are critical to the rapidly 
growing clean energy industries of the future, including 
electric vehicles and energy storage, as directed by the BIL. 
Both the newly established Manufacturing and Energy Supply 
Chains Office and the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations 
offer new opportunities to support the development of a 
domestic lithium-ion battery supply chain. The Office of Clean 
Energy Demonstrations will oversee more than $20 billion in 
federal investments in clean energy projects. These projects 
will work toward the Biden Administration's goal of reaching 
net-zero emissions by mid-century by investing in demonstration 
projects to allow the U.S. to test possible clean energy 
solutions that can provide innovative and effective solutions 
to real-world problems.
    Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the 
Committee today. I look forward to working with you as the U.S. 
transitions to a clean energy economy and reaches net-zero 
emissions no later than 2050. I look forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Howell follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator Barrasso. Thank you so much, Mr. Howell, for your 
testimony.
    Dr. Wood.

 OPENING STATEMENT OF DR. DUNCAN ROBERT WOOD, VICE PRESIDENT, 
          STRATEGY AND NEW INITIATIVES, WILSON CENTER

    Dr. Wood. Thank you, Ranking Member Barrasso, and greetings 
to the other distinguished Committee members, and of course, 
Chairman Manchin. I am very grateful to be here today. My 
testimony focuses on the exponential demand that is expected 
for critical minerals in the next decades as a result of the 
move toward a global energy transition. My research and my 
remarks today point toward an urgent need for action from the 
U.S. Government in conjunction with allies and partners here in 
the U.S. and abroad to find ways of satisfying that demand.
    I would like to make two main points when addressing 
demand. The growth in demand for critical minerals is already 
impressive, but will become increasingly daunting as the energy 
transition advances. And secondly, policymakers and industry 
must work together to find an adequate response to this 
daunting reality with priority given to the development of new 
resources. The need to secure new lines of supply for the 
critical minerals essential to the energy transition is now 
firmly embedded in the mindset of policymakers. However, the 
urgency of the situation is still not fully understood by many. 
This urgency stems from two inescapable realities. First, we 
must recognize the scale of future demand for critical 
minerals, which in the case of several metals, is shockingly 
large. Second comes the question of the pace of rising demand. 
Policymakers must embrace the painful truth that the highly 
worthy target set for the energy transition can only be met by 
a combination of public policy incentives and massive 
investment now by the private sector here in the United States 
and abroad in new mining activities.
    According to recent publications by the World Bank and the 
International Energy Agency, we see that the growth for 
critical minerals is truly exponential. Whilst there is strong 
demand growth for all minerals associated with clean energies, 
in the case of minerals such as cobalt, lithium, graphite, and 
indium, annual growth rates reach stratospheric levels of 
several hundred percent. The IEA has identified in its 
publication, ``The Role of Critical Minerals in Clean Energy 
Transitions,'' that whereas traditional hydrocarbon-based 
energy generation systems are fuel intensive, renewable energy 
systems are material-, and specifically mineral-intensive. To 
give one example, an onshore wind plant requires nine times 
more mineral resources than a gas-fired power plant. The report 
goes on--since 2010, the average amount of minerals needed for 
a new unit of power generation capacity has increased by 50 
percent as the share of renewables has risen. Taking a closer 
look at lithium, an essential element in EV battery technology, 
it is estimated that by 2030 the global demand for lithium is 
expected to surpass two million metric tons of lithium 
carbonate equivalent, more than doubling the demand forecast 
for 2025. To put this in perspective, total global production 
of lithium today is only around 100,000 metric tons.
    The scale of the challenge must therefore not be 
underestimated. One way to grasp that scale has been put 
forward by Guillaume Pitron in ``The Rare Metals War,'' who 
notes that with a doubling of demand for rare earth elements 
every 15 years, at this rate, over the next 30 years, we will 
need to mine more mineral ores than humans have extracted over 
the last 70,000 years. To address that demand, we need to have 
more than mere tinkering with the critical minerals policy in 
this country and globally. What is needed today is a ``whole of 
society'' approach that incorporates all levels of government, 
the private sector, research and educational institutions, and 
end-users of critical minerals. This means adopting a holistic, 
open-minded approach to the issue, embracing the development of 
new resources, new forms of extraction and processing, new 
technologies, energy efficiency models, and recycling and waste 
reduction. Ignoring any one of these elements makes it 
impossible to build a new energy model and maintain it.
    On recycling, it is true, of course, that because minerals 
are a component of energy infrastructure and can be recovered 
and recycled, recycling will play an important role. However, 
there is a simple stark reality that must be addressed. 
Although recycling will play an increasingly important role, 
materials can only be recycled once they have entered the 
system. This means that as demand grows exponentially, it is 
logically and practically impossible for recycling to satisfy 
that demand until there are more raw materials in the system 
than current demand. This is a simple point, but one that must 
be stated and restated. The IEA has estimated that by 2040, 
recycled quantities of copper, lithium, nickel, and cobalt from 
spent batteries could reduce combined primary supply 
requirements by around 10 percent. That is not insignificant, 
but it is vital to recognize that 90 percent of future demand 
growth must be satisfied by newly mined resources. To give an 
indication of the potential and limitations of future recycling 
for critical minerals, under current conditions, only around 35 
percent of available copper is recycled today.
    To make matters worse, as the vehicle fleet is electrified, 
the minerals that are used to produce batteries will not be 
recycled for at least 10 years as car owners get the maximum 
use out of their batteries. This time lag means that the full 
potential for EV battery recycling will only be realized a 
decade after massive electrification begins. It is vital to 
recognize once and for all the central and unavoidable role 
played by critical minerals extraction in the clean energy 
transition. Mining is needed to power that transition in the 
same way that oil and gas powered the industrial transformation 
of the 20th century. If critical minerals stay in the ground, 
the transition will be insufficient. Urgent steps must be taken 
soon to address the severe deficit in critical minerals. To 
paraphrase an old adage, the best time to have done so would 
have been 10 years ago. The second-best time is now.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Wood follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator Barrasso. Well, thanks so much, Dr. Wood, we 
appreciate your testimony.
    Mr. Forney.

 OPENING STATEMENT OF R. SCOTT FORNEY III, PRESIDENT, GENERAL 
             ATOMICS, ELECTROMAGNETIC SYSTEMS GROUP

    Mr. Forney. Chairman Manchin, Ranking Member Barrasso, and 
members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to 
contribute to the Committee's exploration of significant global 
supply chain issues affecting critical minerals. My name is 
Scott Forney, and I am the President of General Atomics 
Electromagnetic Systems. General Atomics has a rich history of 
research, development, and technology innovation, which has led 
to an expanding portfolio of specialized products from 
undersea, to space, to weapon systems, and more and more for 
critical defense, industrial, and commercial customers 
worldwide. I believe General Atomics brings an important 
perspective on the criticality of mineral demand to our 
national defense sector. I hope to draw your attention to the 
many challenges businesses like ours face within the Defense 
Industrial Base as we deal with the unique supply chain 
challenges.
    I am here to highlight how complex and costly managing the 
demand for these critical minerals has become. We believe 
onshoring certain production capabilities and increasing the 
availability of critical minerals will help strengthen and 
protect U.S. industries and our military industrial base. 
Broader supply challenges have caused ripple effects for all 
Americans. Disruptions impact components for space systems, 
large structures for submarines or aircraft carriers or other 
ships, hypersonic weapon systems, laser weapon systems, fission 
reactors, and battery systems for the Department of Defense. We 
have experienced dramatic changes in the availability of 
critical materials since the beginning of the COVID-19 
pandemic, and we have become more cognizant of the strong 
reliance the defense industry has on foreign producers and our 
vulnerability to supply chain disruption. Given ongoing 
geopolitical challenges, disruption will continue to persist, 
and more domestic capability is not only an appropriate 
response, but a necessary one.
    Rather than them making choices based on the engineering 
practices that we deem best engineering, unavailability of 
special, high-strength alloys has forced design decisions and 
changes to complex systems dependent on these materials. 
Volatility in the nickel market due to speculators and the 
Russian war in Ukraine have effectively shut down the market. 
Procurement efforts for submarine-grade materials containing 
nickel, including high-strength metals and nickel copper were 
temporarily suspended. The future impact on nickel availability 
and price due to Russian sanctions is unknown. Lead times for 
some of this critical material have increased from months to 
years. Many of our suppliers increasingly reserve the right to 
reprice their raw stock or forged materials after we place an 
order, referencing the volatility of material pricing and the 
availability due to market conditions. Planning for multiyear 
procurements, which drives our largest, most critical programs, 
while also maintaining reasonable margins of schedule and cost 
performance and cost risk to maintain contract profitability, 
is getting more and more challenging every year.
    Members of the Committee may be familiar with the 
increasing trend within the Department of Defense to award 
fixed-price contracts versus cost-plus contracts. These 
contracts do not account for the extreme type of market 
volatility we are experiencing today. The Defense Industrial 
Base is paying the price for all of this out of pocket. 
President Biden's Executive Order of last February, ``America's 
Supply Chains'' ordered a review of vulnerabilities in our 
critical mineral and material supply chains, including rare 
earth elements. The Commerce Department initiated an 
investigation to determine effects on U.S. national security 
from imports of neodymium-iron-boron permanent magnets. 
Critical national security systems rely on neodymium-iron-boron 
magnets, including submarine propulsion motors and missile 
guidance systems, to say a few.
    To support the aims of both these Executive Orders and 
investigation, General Atomics is working with the Department 
of Energy for the design, construction, and operation of a rare 
earth element separation and processing demonstration plant 
near Upton, Wyoming. We have already extracted a thousand-ton 
sample of Bear Lodge, Wyoming ore in anticipation of the 
demonstration facility startup. We expect to demonstrate a 
process to separate rare earth oxides into usable elements such 
as neodymium and for praseodymium in less time, more 
efficiently, with greater purity, and with less environmental 
impact than current extraction technologies worldwide. Since 
COVID-19, and now with the Russian-Ukraine conflict, rare earth 
element prices are triple or more of what they were before 
COVID-19. This is all challenging for all of us in the Defense 
Industrial Base.
    Thank you again for your time and the opportunity to speak 
on this important subject. I look forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Forney follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator Barrasso. Well, thanks so much, Mr. Forney. We are 
appreciative of your testimony.
    Mr. Britton.

  OPENING STATEMENT OF JOE BRITTON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ZERO 
               EMISSION TRANSPORTAION ASSOCIATION

    Mr. Britton. Chairman Manchin and Ranking Member Barrasso 
and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to 
speak with you today. My name is Joe Britton. I am the 
Executive Director of the Zero Emission Transportation 
Association. We are a coalition of companies that represent the 
entire EV supply chain, from battery and vehicle manufacturers 
to charging companies to critical mineral developers and 
utilities. I recognize that many here today may have already 
developed strong opinions about electric vehicles or the 
critical minerals needed to power them, so I intend to give you 
an honest assessment of the opportunities and the challenges to 
expanding EV adoption in the United States.
    Ultimately, I believe that EVs will be an American success 
story, leading to not only emissions reduction, but a 
rejuvenated manufacturing base where everyone is better off, 
even those who may never get behind the wheel of an EV. If we 
get this right, there will be more Americans who benefit from a 
stable career, who avoid breathing polluted air, or whose small 
business benefits from a new manufacturing plant opening in 
their hometown. Private industry is investing tens of billions 
of dollars in new EV manufacturing along a corridor from the 
industrial Midwest to states like Arizona and Oklahoma, Georgia 
and Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, the Carolinas, and most 
recently announcements we have seen from GreenPower Bus and 
Sparkz batteries, creating 1,200 jobs in West Virginia. These 
investments are aimed at helping meet American demand for 
electric vehicles, which is important, because the bipartisan 
supermajority--71 percent of Americans--are considering an EV 
for their next purchase. If we do not rise to the challenge, 
these consumers may turn to foreign imports as they did in the 
early 2000's.
    Ensuring that American companies have the support and 
incentives to meet this demand will require a comprehensive 
bipartisan strategy to drive both vehicle manufacturing and a 
durable North American supply chain for critical minerals. 
These minerals are essential, not just for EVs, but traditional 
gas-powered vehicles, satellites, missile systems, oil and gas 
production, and all consumer electronics, including iPhones and 
laptops. Limited production and refining capacity is especially 
challenging, though, since nearly all extraction ends up in 
Asia for processing. But that doesn't need to be the case, and 
it certainly doesn't mean American workers should be counted 
out. In fact, North America has greater mineral resources than 
China, and we can outcompete, along with our allies, those that 
stand in our way.
    ZETA represents a host of companies seeking to expand our 
domestic critical mineral production and processing as well as 
battery manufacturing. Companies like Albemarle, Ioneer, and 
Lithium Americas are scaling up lithium production. When their 
operations are up and running, they could produce enough 
lithium to manufacture nearly four million EVs a year, 
representing 25 percent of new car sales. Jervois will begin 
producing enough cobalt in Idaho to meet 15 to 20 percent of 
today's annual U.S. cobalt demand, with capacity to grow. They 
are also expanding--importantly, the processing--in Brazil and 
Finland to wrestle away refining capacity from China and 
securing a reliable source for our manufacturing base. NOVONIX, 
operating in Tennessee, will support 150,000 metric tons of 
synthetic graphite production by 2030. This will help power 
three million EVs a year. Redwood Materials--joining today, I 
will not steal your thunder--is planning to be able to supply 
enough materials for a million EVs in the next few years, five 
million by the year 2030. U.S. manufacturers like Tesla, Lucid, 
Rivian, Proterra, and Arrival, and battery manufacturers like 
Panasonic, are seeking to build their cell production work 
here, which will further drive domestic critical mineral 
production and processing capacity.
    The Defense Production Act that the President invoked, 
which has already been mentioned, was done at the request of 
both Republicans and Democrats on this Committee, and 
demonstrated the Administration's intent to expand our 
capabilities and signal to the entire Federal Government the 
commitment to securing these supply chains. This is important 
to get right for not only economic reasons, but to secure a 
stable supply chain that meets our values. But it is also 
important to limit the unnecessary carbon emissions of shipping 
heavy metals around the globe for processing, only to return 
and be integrated into American batteries. I recognize that at 
times we can talk past each other. Some may say permitting 
reform. Some may say refining mining reform. What I think many 
of us can agree on, though, is that the permitting process 
should protect our communities, but also fairly adhere to a 
predictable schedule to reflect the urgency of securing these 
critical minerals. Chairman Manchin and Senator Murkowski's 
Critical Materials bill, which ZETA endorsed and everybody that 
voted for the Bipartisan Infrastructure bill supported, serves 
as an example of the direction in which Congress should be 
heading to streamline this process.
    Today's supply chain is complicated and it has many 
challenges. But turning away in the face of these obstacles 
only means conceding to foreign commercial interests. We know 
how to fight these battles and we have won them before. 
American companies are working hard to onshore their supply 
chains, but they need federal support through predictable 
permitting, battery, vehicle, and charging tax incentives, and 
a whole-of-government approach to drive transportation 
electrification. Thank you for your time, and I look forward to 
your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Britton follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator Barrasso. Thank you so much, Mr. Britton, for your 
testimony.
    Now, Mr. Straubel.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF J.B. STRAUBEL, 
               FOUNDER AND CEO, REDWOOD MATERIALS

    Mr. Straubel. Chairman Manchin, Ranking Member Barrasso, 
and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to 
testify. I am J.B. Straubel. I am the Founder and Chief 
Executive Officer at Redwood Materials. Prior to starting 
Redwood, I co-founded and was CTO at Tesla for 15 years. At 
Tesla, I led battery cell design and built and scaled the first 
Gigafactory and also launched and ran our stationary energy 
storage business. It was during this time at Tesla that I had a 
front row seat to the challenges and opportunities that the 
industry as a whole will face as vehicle and energy markets 
electrify.
    It became clear that the supply chain around batteries 
could gate the entire speed of our energy transition. I started 
Redwood Materials to develop a fully closed-loop, domestic 
supply chain for lithium-ion batteries. From consumer devices, 
electric vehicles, and energy storage systems, refining the 
materials and then remanufacturing them back into usable 
components for battery manufacturers, both anode and cathode, 
these can go directly to cell manufacturers like Ford, 
Panasonic, and many others. This Committee has shown tremendous 
foresight in recognizing the urgent risk to our nation's 
security and energy independence due to shortages of critical 
materials. We saw evidence of this leadership just last week 
when President Biden announced that he would be enacting the 
Defense Production Act to address this issue.
    Equally important are the downstream components that these 
minerals build. Today, the two most critical and expensive 
components in lithium-ion batteries, the anode and the cathode, 
are produced via supply chain almost entirely based in Asia, as 
we have heard from others. Our current supply chain would 
require that metals, whether newly mined or recycled, travel 
outside the United States, where this component manufacturing 
infrastructure exists. This is because there is a gap in the 
U.S. between critical mineral extraction and domestic battery 
cell manufacturing. Redwood is working to close this gap by 
domestically producing large-scale sources of these anode and 
cathode materials produced from as many recycled batteries as 
are available, augmented, as has also been noted, with 
sustainably mined materials in order to supply this transition.
    On a personal note, I flew here directly today from Korea, 
where I spent the last few days actually visiting some of the 
world's leading cathode manufacturing factories in Korea, some 
of them who we are partnering with directly to move technology 
and process to the United States. It is a sobering and humbling 
experience seeing the scale and investment and speed that is 
happening in these Asian countries and what we need to 
reproduce here. The United States, today, only accounts for 
about 10 percent of global battery cell production. Sixty-five 
percent of the cost that goes into those cells is imported, 
mainly from Asia. This overall industry is projected to scale 
by more than 500 percent in just the coming decade and continue 
scaling beyond that.
    At Redwood, we aim to manufacture 100 gigawatt-hours per-
year of both anode and cathode materials by 2025, enough to 
domestically produce more than one million electric vehicles 
per-year. By 2030, we aim to produce 500 gigawatt-hours per-
year of these battery materials, or enough to supply over five 
million electric vehicles. As a nation, overall, our increased 
battery demand presents an opportunity. Not only does an 
investment in producing battery components help capture greater 
than $100 billion of economic value from now until 2030 that 
would otherwise be lost to battery materials manufacturing 
abroad, but additionally, as an increasing number of batteries 
reach end-of-life every year, our country has a growing and 
very sizable, infinitely recyclable resource at our disposal 
right here.
    Today, Redwood is already receiving about six gigawatt-
hours per-year of end-of-life batteries annually. This is about 
60,000 electric vehicles equivalent worth of material that we 
recycle, and we recover more than 95 percent of the metals, 
like nickel, cobalt, lithium, and copper, as noted, in critical 
demand. We then use these critical materials to remanufacture 
anode and cathode components domestically and supply these back 
to the battery cell manufacturers without those materials ever 
leaving the country. This is our goal. Panasonic, who is co-
located at the Tesla Gigafactory No. 1 in Nevada, will be the 
first cell manufacturer to source Redwood's anode copper foil, 
making it the first time batteries will be recycled, 
remanufactured, and returned to the same factory in a fully 
closed-loop, again, without ever leaving the country.
    The transition to electric transportation and clean energy 
is coming. Creating a domestic circular supply chain for 
batteries in the U.S. is a win-win, allowing our country to 
create significant economic gains and security, tens of 
thousands of jobs, decreasing our risk and reliance on foreign 
manufacturing, and ensuring that more than $100 billion will be 
used and invested in these American enterprises versus going 
overseas. I want to thank the Committee for holding this 
important hearing, and I look forward to your questions. Thank 
you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Straubel follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    The Chairman [presiding]. Thank you. Thank all of you, and 
I'm so sorry for us going back and forth. We still have two 
more votes to go, so we will all be moving in and out a little 
bit, if you don't mind. We are going to start with our 
questions right now.
    In my opening remarks, I made a reference to Superman, and 
sticking with the theme of Marvel Comics, Spiderman gave us the 
iconic line, ``With great power comes great responsibility.'' 
So, Mr. Forney, and to Mr. Britton, what concrete steps are 
your companies taking to learn more about where your mineral 
supplies are coming from and where your company, or member 
companies, commit to responsible sourcing? That's all that we 
need to know, if you can comment on that.
    Mr. Forney. Thank you, Chairman Manchin, for the question. 
General Atomics spends a great deal of time on supply chain 
challenges. There are requirements, though, imposed on us, on 
our contracts from the Department of Defense that require much 
of our sourcing to be done domestically, and that challenges us 
because of so many products that we need from the international 
supply chain. In addition to that, there are things called 
DFARS, which is Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation 
Supplement, that has clauses that require us to use specialty 
materials from U.S.-based domestic supply or from very specific 
countries. As a result of that, we have an extensive process 
called Approved Supply List that we use to process our 
different suppliers around the country and around the world to 
provide those materials.
    We also try to stockpile as much as we can. So, unusual 
probably in our business, we will spend a fair amount of 
company internal money to make sure that, when we know we have 
long lead challenges, we will get that material in-house for 
future contracts, that maybe it takes several years. As an 
example, as COVID-19 hit us in March 2020--just my business 
within General Atomics--we had 25 million piece-parts in our 
Tupelo, Mississippi manufacturing facility. So we didn't hit a 
supply-chain challenge for that first year of the pandemic as a 
result of that.
    But this is a big challenge, which is why we are devoting 
50 percent cost share against this Department of Energy 
separation facility in Upton, Wyoming so we can get to the rare 
earth elements ourselves.
    The Chairman. Mr. Britton.
    Mr. Britton. We are also producing domestically. We have 
companies like Ioneer. I think they are going to be probably 
the cleanest lithium production in the world. They are also 
going to be doing processing, which is crucial. So right now, 
one of the deficits in the critical minerals space is that no 
matter where those minerals are extracted, much of that goes to 
China for processing. The more that we reshore processing, the 
more we can sustainably provide manufacturers here a base for 
their critical mineral needs. Others, like Lithium Americas, 
are coming online. Albemarle has Silver Peak, which is 
producing lithium. They are exploring in Kings Mountain in the 
Carolinas. We also have Piedmont Lithium and Livent Lithium. 
Jervois is really close to coming online with cobalt 
manufacturing in Idaho.
    So, together, we see a pathway where we can domestically 
source all these key critical minerals for millions and 
millions of EVs a year in just a few years.
    The Chairman. Let me ask this. Mr. Straubel, I am going to 
go to you first on that end, and then I will go to Mr. Howell 
and Dr. Wood.
    The way I see things playing out right here, you see the 
Administration's determination basically with a piece of 
legislation they have put out, if we would go down that path 
about wanting, by 2035, almost the entire transportation fleet 
EVs, if they could. I am concerned about putting our 
transportation mode in the whole hands of foreign supply 
chains. So okay, now they want to give $2,500 credit to anybody 
that buys a car that has a battery that was made in America. 
Made in America, and all the resources that go into that 
battery is a different story. So I would not be for that unless 
the whole thing is sourcing. That means the environmental 
community has to get on board, and quit putting on all the 
restrictions that every time you want to go to a mine or 
processing, you go to court.
    So give me an estimate of a time element that we could be 
totally self-sufficient from the resources, sourcing, and 
basically doing all the refinery and everything--cathodes and 
anodes--everything it takes to make a battery. Unless there is 
a new source of battery that is going to be made, or new style 
of battery.
    Mr. Straubel.
    Mr. Straubel. Thank you for the question.
    It depends a little bit on how fast we are able to invest 
in those industries. As we have noted, we do not have many of 
those critical manufacturing industries today. They exist 
entirely in Asia. About 65 percent of the cost structure of----
    The Chairman. What is the reason for that?
    Mr. Straubel. Somewhat legacy. This is where those 
industries grew. That is where they originated as part of the 
consumer electronics industry. Maybe 15 to 20 years ago, Asia 
viewed these industries very strategically and invested 
strategically as part of long-term plans. So that has 
continued, and they have really, as you have noted, dominated 
this whole industry.
    The Chairman. So for us to get up to speed, just give me an 
idea. One year? Three years? Five years? Ten years? Fifteen 
years?
    Mr. Straubel. I think it is certainly closer to a five-year 
to ten-year window before we could recover----
    The Chairman. Totally be self-sufficient?
    Mr. Straubel. And build enough of these industries to have 
that entire supply chain sourcing.
    The Chairman. The average time for a permit, just to get a 
mining permit and to take the product out of the ground, is 10 
years. That is just the permit to mine. That's not to do any of 
the processing. Just the mining permit.
    I know I am over time here but it is interesting.
    What do you have?
    Mr. Howell. Thank you for your question, Senator, and your 
leadership in this space. It is very important for the 
Department of Energy as well. Our effort is to develop a 
circular economy for electric vehicles and electric vehicle 
batteries by the 2040-2050 timeframe, including significant 
recycling for advanced batteries.
    The Chairman. Why would we give a $2,500 credit for 
something that we do not do and we have to rely on China to do? 
Why are we giving a credit for that?
    Mr. Howell. We do have capabilities in the lithium space 
today, a lot of resources and reserves. Cobalt and nickel--we 
are trying to reduce the amount of cobalt needed in these 
batteries.
    The Chairman. You are changing composition of the battery 
itself?
    Mr. Howell. Yes, absolutely.
    The Chairman. I get it.
    Dr. Wood, do you want to say anything real quick?
    Dr. Wood. I think that the targets are laudable, but I am 
not sure if they are realistic, for a number of reasons--
consumer preferences, but most importantly, I would say that we 
are heading towards a cliff edge here, and folks such as the 
team at TechMet, a London-based firm, who have looked at this, 
say it is almost impossible to get there. Not just in terms of 
the United States providing those, but globally. When you look 
at just the amount of materials that are going to be needed to 
reach 50 percent of the vehicle fleet being electric in the 
next decade or so, there just are not enough being produced 
globally.
    So we either have to make a gargantuan or Herculean task 
right now of getting them out of the ground here and around the 
world or we have to push that target back a bit.
    The Chairman. Go ahead.
    Mr. Britton. I was going to just mention while you were 
out, we agree on your critical minerals streamlining and 
permitting bill. I think there are two reasons to move quickly. 
One is, and you asked J.B. about this, why are we not doing the 
processing here? The processing investments that are happening 
in Asia, we did not make here because there was not a critical 
mass of battery cell production. And so, there is a through-
line where if we are creating these products here, we are 
building these battery cells and building these vehicles, it 
then has follow-on impacts where we are justifying additional 
investment in processing, which further secures a North 
American supply chain.
    The other thing that is really, really important is that 
every battery that we have, and this is a reason to move 
quickly, becomes--when gas prices are high there is a lot of 
discussion about the National Petroleum Reserve. Every vehicle 
that we bring to America or that we make here and manufacture 
becomes part of a national strategic battery reserve. Those 
critical minerals, if they are here in a product, whether 
that's in your hand or your driveway, become J.B.'s feedstock 
to sustainably source critical minerals for decades to come.
    The Chairman. Senator Barrasso.
    Senator Barrasso. Well, thanks, Mr. Chairman. I see the 
second vote has started. Mr. Forney, in your testimony you note 
that General Atomics has partnered with the Bear Lodge Rare 
Earth Element Project in Northeast Wyoming. What is unique 
about the rare earth element deposits in this area in my home 
state and why are you backing the project?
    Mr. Forney. Ranking Member Barrasso, thank you for the 
question.
    It is very important for General Atomics, as a developer 
and producer of advanced defense products, that relying very 
much on rare earths for components, we rely on rare earths for 
our laser weapons, for our hypersonic systems. We have 
increasingly relied on high-power permanent magnets for space 
components, et cetera.
    We and our allies must improve our ability to control rare 
earths and the supply chain. If you go back to 1965, 85 percent 
of the rare earth elements were provided from the United 
States. Look at what has happened to where we are today. 
Certainly, when we look at Bear Lodge and 18 million tons of 
clean and high-grade rare-earth materials, that is of great 
interest to the company. In addition, there is a critical 
missing link, and the missing link is the ability to separate 
the mixed rare earths that occur in nature into individual 
elements because--permanent magnets, for example, require rare 
earths such as neodymium, et cetera. Unless these elements or 
suitable combinations of them can be separated, magnets cannot 
be made. Indeed, the strategic value of the Bear Lodge deposit 
can only be achieved if separation is available. That is why 
our team and the Department of Energy are cost sharing this 
important construction of a facility in Upton, Wyoming that 
will demonstrate economic separation from Bear Lodge ore of 
rare earths critical to permanent magnet manufacture.
    Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
    Dr. Wood, in your testimony you said a couple things. You 
said the United States and most of the rest of the world find 
themselves spectacularly ill-prepared to meet the challenge of 
the rising demand for critical minerals, and you call for a 
combination of public policy incentives and massive investment 
now by the private sector here in the United States and abroad 
in new mining activities. You note that permitting remains a 
major concern in the United States. Why is it so important for 
Congress to fix the permitting process?
    Dr. Wood. Thank you, Ranking Member Barrasso, for that. 
Yes, in the research we have done at the Wilson Center in 
conjunction, in collaboration with the private-sector, 
universities, and government, the permitting lag here in the 
United States is seen as being one of the most important 
impediments to getting minerals out of the ground and to 
market. We need to reduce the time needed to open a mine and we 
need to get those minerals out of the ground as quickly as 
possible to processing plants and obviously to the industry and 
end-users that utilize them. And I think the best comparison 
that we can make is obviously with countries like Australia and 
Canada, which have an average permitting time of two years 
compared to the seven to ten years taken here in the United 
States. They don't have lower standards than the United States. 
I think all of us agree that we need to protect the 
environment, but they have found a way to do it.
    Now, part of that is because they have different political 
systems. Part of that is because the states or provinces play a 
less important role in this than their counterparts do here in 
the United States. Part of it is that the United States has a 
much more litigious culture than other countries and that 
causes problems. But I think that addressing this while still 
respecting standards has to be one of the priorities if we are 
actually going to move on this. And one other thing I will say 
there, Senator Barrasso, if I may, which is the discussions 
that have been going on recently in the International Seabed 
Authority, where the United States is conspicuous by its 
absence in the conversation, I think shows us what is possible 
in the rest of the world, and where the United States really 
needs to take a good look and say, we need to be part of these 
conversations. There are enormous amounts of minerals on the 
seabed. There are huge environmental implications there, but it 
is going to happen anyway and the United States should be part 
of that conversation.
    Senator Barrasso. Mr. Forney, my final question--you know, 
General Atomics is a manufacturer of defense systems for the 
U.S. military. It competes with companies which use critical 
minerals for commercial purposes, not defense purposes. Now, in 
your testimony you say competition with commercial industry has 
made procurement of high-quality lithium-ion battery cells 
extremely difficult. You go on to state, ``Decisions are being 
made based on availability instead of optimum technical 
solutions.'' When you refer to commercial industry, do you mean 
electric vehicle manufacturers, and what kind of compromises 
has General Atomics had to make in light of competition from 
commercial industry?
    Mr. Forney. Well, thank you for the question, Senator 
Barrasso. That question is an interesting one to us because 
today, we, General Atomics, are integrating thousands and 
thousands of lithium-ion batteries for Department of Defense 
undersea applications and of course, the source for those 
batteries comes from Asia. Secondly, we are trying to finalize 
qualifying batteries for our airborne assets. And 
unfortunately, because of the significant demand for lithium-
ion batteries in the electrical vehicle market and others, the 
batteries that we had qualified are no longer available and we 
had to find another source of manufacture, which, for us, was 
in North America, but it is not at the same cost, value, and 
that challenges us, like other products, when we have to make 
these kinds of decisions due to inavailability of product.
    Senator Barrasso. Thanks, Mr. Forney.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Senator Cortez Masto.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    First of all, I just have to thank you again for holding 
these important hearings and thank you to the Ranking Member as 
well. I think today's hearing further exemplifies the sentiment 
that I expressed at last week's hearing that Nevada is a nexus 
for our clean energy and critical mineral future. Nevada is the 
only state in the country that encompasses every facet of the 
lithium-ion battery economy, from the mining of lithium 
deposits to the research and development to production, 
assembly, and finally, to recycling.
    Here's the deal. This is our moonshot, and this is why this 
is such an important issue. It is important for the 
Administration to stake a goal for all of us to marshal our 
resources. Whether we achieve that goal can always be in 
question, but at least we are moving in the same direction, 
just like Kennedy did when he made his announcement that he was 
going to put a man on the moon. This is our moment to focus on 
a clean energy economy, taking the technology, taking the 
opportunities in the minerals that we have here to build out 
that clean energy economy and make it right here in America. We 
are the innovators. We are the entrepreneurs. We are the ones 
that can do it.
    We can sit here and armchair quarterback everything about 
it, but at the end of the day, without an Administration and a 
focus of all of us moving in that direction, we will never get 
there and we will be out--literally, countries will outcompete 
us. They already are. We know it. We are talking about it right 
now. And so, to me, this is a moment for all of us to marshal 
behind this and figure out how we get it done. It is our 
future. It is the future for our kids. It is the future for our 
planet. And we should be leading this. We should be competitive 
internationally, and this is our moment to do it.
    I just cannot stress that enough because there are going to 
be things that we should be doing in Congress to incentivize us 
continuing to move in that direction. And I am going to talk 
about a couple of them because right now I am working with 
Senator Bennet and other Finance members to introduce a bill to 
establish an advanced battery manufacturing investment tax 
credit for building new plants or retrofitting existing 
manufacturing plants that make high-capacity batteries. I am 
also working with Congressman Eric Swalwell to introduce the 
Rare Earth Magnet Production Tax Credit Act. This bill supports 
the domestic production for rare earth mineral magnets used in 
the automotive and renewable energy industries, including in 
the motors of over 90 percent of electric vehicles. There are 
things that we can do, working together--as long as we are 
focused on that ultimate goal, at the end of the day, we can 
make this happen. Whether we achieve the specific goal, at 
least we are moving in that direction. That is what this is 
about to me, and that is why it is so important we are all here 
today having this conversation.
    Let me start with Mr. Straubel on the recycling. Can you 
tell us about the current state of recycling and reuse for 
critical minerals? Are the technologies we need to do this 
available and ready to be deployed, and how much material can 
we harvest this way compared to original sourcing?
    Mr. Straubel. Thank you for your question.
    The technology to do the recycling and refining is quite 
mature today. As I noted in my opening remarks, we are already 
doing this at about six gigawatt-hours per-year and more than 
60,000 vehicles per-year equivalent of materials. What is not 
yet very mature, and does not exist, is the remanufacturing. So 
once we recycle and partially refine those materials, we need 
to build the industries in North America to keep the materials 
here and bring them all the way back into cell manufacture 
again. In terms of percentages and how much can we actually 
supply, I do agree with some of Dr. Wood's comments earlier 
that recycling cannot meet 100 percent of the need. It is 
logically not possible when we are growing the whole industry.
    However, with regard to some particular elements, like 
cobalt, we are able to get much closer to 100 percent of the 
need because of the shifting technology in batteries. Today's 
batteries that go into an EV or many other advanced 
applications use much less cobalt than a generation ago. So 
when we recycle and harvest old batteries, we can actually 
recover far more cobalt and spread that into a much, much 
larger production fleet. So it is different based on element. 
Nickel and lithium will need a lot of new demand and we will 
have to find ways to sustainably source new mined material, 
whether it is from the United States directly or from 
neighboring countries or different regions that are doing this 
responsibly. Recycling, we believe, can meet maybe 25 to 30 
percent of the goals that we plan to do over the next five to 
ten years.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
    Then, Dr. Wood, let me ask you, the goal here for Congress 
is to continue to incentivize to move in that direction, right? 
And we are all going to come up with ideas that, obviously, are 
important for not just our states, but for our country. And to 
position us competitively so that we can bring that full supply 
chain back, we are building here from the extraction all the 
way to the processing and mining and getting all of the 
products made here and components in America. For purposes of 
Congress, is there anything we have done so far or that we are 
proposing that is going to hinder it? In other words, if we are 
talking about investment tax credits to incentivize an industry 
to continue to move in that direction, are there any that we 
have proposed right now that are going to hinder that or chill 
that somehow?
    Dr. Wood. Thank you, Senator.
    I am not sure that I am qualified to talk about the impact 
of tax credits, honestly, but what I will say is this: I worry 
a great deal that when either Congress or the Administration 
moves, such as we saw with the DPA announcement, that all of a 
sudden people say, `We have done something. Now we can back 
off.' As you said very eloquently, it is a moonshot. We have to 
keep our eyes on the prize, which is to say that this is not 
something that we are going to resolve in a one-and-done 
solution. What we have to do is keep moving forward.
    I really appreciate J.B.'s comments just now, which is that 
it is not an either/or, it is an all-of-the-above. The fact is, 
we need recycling. The fact is we need new resources. The fact 
is we need tax credits. We need massive investment in human 
capital for this. We need to think not just about the United 
States, but we need to think about our partners and allies 
internationally, where we can have secure supply chains--ally-
shoring, if you will. We exist in the region of North America. 
We have to recognize to the north of us is a massive mineral 
deposit in Canada, to the south of us is a country which has 
impressive mineral resources, perhaps not the easiest country 
to work with at this point in time, but we need to think about 
how we pull it all together in an integrated and holistic way. 
That is the danger here. If we take our eyes off the prize 
because we have done something, then we miss, ultimately, 
achieving that goal.
    Senator Cortez Masto.  Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Senator Cassidy.
    Senator Cassidy. Dr. Wood, I think you just called Canada a 
massive mineral deposit. So anyway.
    Listen, in the 1980s, there was a plant built at the 
Gramercy refinery in Louisiana to extract gallium from 
Gramercy's aluminum plants process stream--completed. Within 
days of starting up, the then-dominant market player paid the 
operator not to start up, and they dismantled the plant. In 
around 2012, the same refinery is about to enter into a JV with 
the world's largest virgin gallium plant. The Chinese knew 
about this. Flooded the market. The partner was also creating a 
rare earth mining operation in Colorado. It went into Chapter 
11 bankruptcy protection because of these predatory practices 
by the Chinese.
    So now, a group is looking to use the refinery to extract 
bauxite and other minerals from the collected waste. So in your 
testimony, you spoke of how the U.S. is ill-prepared for the 
growing demand. I guess my question is, there is clearly a risk 
of dominant players flooding the market to destroy the--just as 
I just described--the ability of someone to make ends meet as 
they produce these. How do we protect against these practices 
as we attempt to scale critical mineral development and 
refining?
    Dr. Wood. Thank you. It is an excellent question, Senator 
Cassidy, and the fact is it comes back to a question that was 
raised earlier on. How is it that the Chinese have gotten so 
far ahead of us? How is it that Asia is so far ahead of us? It 
is because they took the long-term view many years ago. They 
saw this as a strategic opportunity and they continue to act 
because this is a geopolitical and geoeconomic competition.
    Senator Cassidy. But I would argue it is not just a long-
term view, it is also a predatory view.
    Dr. Wood. Absolutely. And so, it's about their current 
geopolitical and geoeconomic goals as well. And I will give you 
another example----
    Senator Cassidy. No, but tell me, because I have limited 
time. How do we cut? How do we address this so if they are 
going to do something in Gramercy, Louisiana, the Chinese don't 
flood the market and cut out the knees of their ability to 
return a profit?
    Dr. Wood. We have to recognize that there are more factors 
that need to come into the equation than just price. We need to 
recognize that the value of critical minerals here is of 
strategic and national interest.
    Senator Cassidy. So are you suggesting a greater financial 
role to create--by the Federal Government, for example--to 
create a critical reservoir of such supplies at a guaranteed 
price that would be above their cost of production?
    Dr. Wood. Strategic reservoirs are one option. Providing 
incentives to purchase U.S.--buy American--is another way to go 
about it, and recognizing that you have to keep certain foreign 
interests out of strategically important industries here in the 
United States is another way of going about it. We do it with 
ports and airports----
    Senator Cassidy. Let me ask, Mr. Forney, you just spoke 
about how your cost of acquiring a product--I'm sorry, I didn't 
listen entirely to what you just said--but because you had a 
source to another provider, it increased your cost. How 
practical is it for the Federal Government to put in a buy-
American clause that would require your company to purchase a 
higher cost product mainly because the Chinese will be flooding 
the market, but something that would, in the long-term, 
stabilize the market?
    Mr. Forney. Senator Cassidy, thanks for the question.
    First of all, the Federal Government does that to the 
Department of Defense already with the DFAR supplement that I 
talked about earlier, requiring, especially, metals to be 
purchased domestically for the most part. There are metals that 
we are allowed to buy elsewhere, but we do that already, and 
for many of our programs, we already have domestic supply 
requirements. General Atomics is very vertically integrated. We 
probably produce, assemble, and manufacture 75 to 85 percent of 
anything we provide to the Federal Government. But getting 
those piece parts, that is where the challenge is, and yes, I 
think we can handle the domestic requirement to buy American.
    Senator Cassidy. Sounds great.
    Dr. Wood, back to you. I am going to do a little product 
placement here. I recently put out something called ``Resetting 
America's Energy and Climate Policy'' and in it we talk about 
extensive permitting and siting reform in order to accomplish 
many of our goals.
    [The report referred to follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator Cassidy. I will point out right now that if we 
enforce our environmental and labor rules and enforce them upon 
other treaty partners, it is a race to the bottom, in which 
China, by not enforcing, lowers their cost to production, and 
therefore gains market share. Again, we have to reverse that 
race to the bottom and get a race to the top. So what would you 
think about some sort of border carbon adjustment that would 
say, okay, if your emissions are above a certain standard 
overseas, above that which we would allow here in the United 
States, that there would be some fee placed upon your import in 
order to hopefully elevate their standard of production, lower 
their emissions, and by so doing, frankly, support our mining 
activity for critical minerals as opposed to those who pay no 
attention whatsoever to environmental considerations in their 
mining activity? Thoughts?
    Dr. Wood. It is an interesting idea. What I do fear in that 
case is that we are going to see interruptions to the supply 
chain--further interruptions to the supply chain, further 
inflation repressures coming in because of that. Another way to 
go about it is to actually engage in the global ESG 
conversation in a more meaningful way. We already have the 
Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative. Of course, we 
have our own initiatives here in the United States. It needs to 
be pulled together and those standards need to be----
    Senator Cassidy. But the only problem with that, if I may 
say, if you have a dominant player providing cobalt, you can do 
ESG as much as you want, but if they have all the cobalt, you 
have to buy from them.
    Dr. Wood. And that is one of the reasons why it is so 
important to look at the new technologies and the new ways of 
reducing cobalt use. We do not have a substitute for it at this 
point in time. Manganese offers us some kind of hope for the 
future, but we still need that, you are absolutely right. So 
ultimately, we need to have a more strategic vision outside of 
the country as well. We need to be there in a lot of these 
countries to gain access to those materials in a way that the 
Chinese have done over the last 20 years.
    Senator Cassidy. I yield. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
    We have Senator Hickenlooper.
    Senator Hickenlooper. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you 
all for all your work you have been doing on this critical, 
essential task.
    Let me start with Mr. Britton. I am old enough to remember 
the oil shocks of the 1970's, and I remember standing in line 
to buy gas. Give us some of the fundamental differences between 
oil and critical minerals, and then how do these differences 
impact the vulnerability that we deal with today? And then 
second, speak to the importance of critical minerals as to EVs 
as you have, somewhat, but can you speak to some of the steps 
policymakers can take to ensure that we have a robust EV 
industry, secure against external shocks?
    Mr. Britton. I appreciate the question. So I will compare 
oil and electricity on two fronts. One is cost and the other is 
resilience. So on cost, the ZETA team and network did a 
comparison between the AAA gas prices in a number of states, 
including Colorado, and compared that to the Energy Information 
Administration cost of electricity, and it turns out that in 
many states it is four to six times more costly to propel your 
vehicle with gasoline. So it is not 20 percent or 30 percent 
more, that is 500 to 600 percent more. So there are enormous 
savings that can be generated and really help families afford 
to, you know, whether that is go to school or church, go about 
their daily lives. The other is the resiliency, and I think 
this is something--the Chairman asked a question about this 
earlier. I think the most important thing, and I am glad that 
J.B. and I are both here together, is that when we import a 
barrel of oil and it gets burnt, it is gone forever, except for 
the lingering impacts from climate change and public health.
    The nice thing about critical minerals is that they are 
recyclable. We can get 95 percent of the critical minerals back 
out of a battery. And that is really important. And there is a 
relationship there, because we actually have a refining deficit 
of both crude oil and critical minerals. The reason that we 
import eight million barrels of oil a day is that our 
refineries are designed for heavy imported crude from Russia 
and Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. We similarly have a deficit of 
critical mineral processing, which requires import. So there is 
a similarity there. And the thing that we need to do to address 
that--and I think part of it is the Chairman and Senator 
Murkowski's critical mineral bill that was included in the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Act--but also there are important 
investments that we made in that same law for processing and 
for recycling. We are on the right track, but what we need more 
than anything is to drive a strong EV sector because, like we 
have alluded to, the more we have domestic manufacturing, the 
more that becomes an attraction. It is a pull force where we 
can then have more of the critical mineral--not only 
development, but processing, and have a true, secure supply 
chain that doesn't benefit just EVs, but every other consumer 
product that requires these minerals.
    Senator Hickenlooper. Got it. I could not agree more.
    I am going to switch over to Mr. Howell, but maybe Mr. 
Straubel and Mr. Britton can both chime in, although I am 
almost out of time. I have a couple of minutes, but concision 
always matters. As we work to scale up domestic critical 
mineral supply chains, obviously, we have to make the most of 
what we have. Things like batteries can be multipurpose. So we 
are working on legislation in collaboration with the Vehicle 
Technologies Office that will encourage vehicle-to-grid 
integration, which utilizes vehicle batteries for 
transportation, storage, and mobile power. How can your office 
and the Department of Energy encourage efficient, effective, 
and multipurpose use of our existing critical minerals? And 
then, Mr. Straubel, and Mr. Britton, when he finishes, just 
briefly chime in on are there other things we should be worried 
about when you use batteries for more than just the vehicle it 
was intended for?
    Mr. Howell. Thank you, Senator Hickenlooper, for your 
question, and certainly a priority area is to get the most out 
of any battery that we manufacture in the United States, 
including vehicle-to-grid, and we call it vehicle-to-X. It 
could be vehicle-to-home, vehicle-to-building.
    Senator Hickenlooper. Yes.
    Mr. Howell. We are working with our partners in industry 
and utility partners to develop concepts and analyze the most 
profitable way to use, not only electric vehicle batteries in 
the car, but second use of those batteries as well. And so, we 
have a battery recycling prize to award profitable business 
models in order to show how we cannot only recover lithium 
batteries, but also profitably use them in a second use. And if 
not in a second use, to get them to a recycling center.
    Senator Hickenlooper. Right. And I generally do not say 
profitably in this context, I say efficiently. It is the same 
thing.
    Mr. Straubel. I think it is an excellent application and 
should be done. I think it will be done using batteries on the 
grid, in homes. We have to keep a slight eye on making sure the 
lifetime is managed accordingly, but I am optimistic that can 
be done as long as it is designed accordingly for the extra 
cycles, extra use.
    Senator Hickenlooper. Right.
    Mr. Straubel. Maybe just one really quick point on the 
previous topic of the resources compared to oil. It really is 
fundamentally different. There is a lot of comparison of 
lithium to petroleum and the new dependency on this, but the 
lithium is not consumed in these applications. You know, we 
mine it, we refine it, we put it into inventory in the fleet, 
and it is there for many, many decades. It is essentially 
infinitely reusable. It is very different than recycling 
plastic or things like that. We can refine it back to new 
quality every single time.
    Senator Hickenlooper. Cool. Great.
    Mr. Britton. I would just say on vehicle-to-grid, I think 
there is an enormous opportunity. We have estimated between 
$600 to $800 in value that could be returned to a light-duty 
customer. There is even greater potential for banks of school 
buses or county or municipal fleets, especially if they are on 
the same substation, they are all parked in the same place. And 
you do not have the same cycling concerns if you are doing 
vehicle-to-grid. Ideally, this is once a quarter, twice a 
quarter. I think there is probably some more concern on 
vehicle-to-home if you are running your air conditioner and 
your washer and dryer off of it constantly, every night, but I 
think vehicle-to-grid has enormous promise.
    Senator Hickenlooper. Great. Thank you very much. I yield 
back to the Chair.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
    We have now Senator Murkowski.
    Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really 
appreciate this hearing following on the one that we had last 
week. This reality that we face that we have a need--a demand--
that is just going like this [motioning upward] and we have 
extraordinary capacity in this country. We know we have the 
resources. I know that certainly in my home state we have the 
resources. But Mr. Britton, when I walked in, you were talking 
about the fact that we don't process anything here. We might 
have the minerals, but we also have a 10-year, on average, 
permitting process to get a mine online. So we can see this. 
And if there are any analogies between oil and critical 
minerals, it is in that we saw the growing vulnerability with 
oil just as we are seeing this growing vulnerability with 
critical minerals. One would like to think that maybe we can 
just be a little more proactive here in how we are going to 
address this in a meaningful way.
    A couple questions for you first, Mr. Howell. The Executive 
Order that just came out indicates five minerals, obviously 
there was reason for those five, but in addition to those that 
were identified in the EO, which minerals do you think that we 
need to add, because just saying five is not going to get us to 
where we need to go. So we have lithium, manganese, nickel, 
cobalt, graphite. What else needs to come next?
    Mr. Howell. Thank you for your question, Senator Murkowski, 
and it is certainly a very important question to understand the 
broadness of the critical materials issues for electrification 
in batteries and other areas. So there are other materials that 
are very important that we would consider on our watch list, as 
we mentioned in the 100-day supply chain report for high-
capacity batteries back in June. That would include copper, 
that would also include--you mentioned graphite, manganese, 
nickel, cobalt, lithium--rare earth elements are imported as 
well. And you know, as we are looking for developing a robust 
and resilient supply chain, we want to make sure that aluminum 
is an important element as well.
    Senator Murkowski. Well, I think there is a lot out there. 
You have indicated that this Executive Order is the first step 
in the right direction. But I think we need to appreciate that 
we need more than step one. So what step two may be is, I 
think, something that we do not want to spend a lot of time 
just thinking about, but let's actually get moving on it.
    I appreciate this discussion about the recycling, and a 
note that it is almost like a national battery reserve that you 
have with each vehicle out there. It is intriguing to think 
about it that way and very stimulating as to, okay, what can we 
do with it. But then, I have just a real reality--in my state, 
we are are struggling with normal recycling, struggling with 
just trash collection. We send all of our recycled products, 
effectively, we put them on a barge and we barge them down to 
the Pacific Northwest. That is not efficient. That is not a way 
to reduce your emissions. So my fear is that when we are 
talking about recycling on a large scale, we are still a long 
ways from being there, so, how we can help facilitate that?
    I want to ask you, Dr. Wood, because you were pretty 
emphatic in saying that we are facing a cliff here. You said it 
is almost impossible to get there. It is a Herculean task and 
we are either going to have to take aggressive steps in what we 
are doing now to get the minerals out or we are going to have 
to push the target. Talk to me a little bit about which you 
think--what would you advise? It seems to me that we need to do 
a little bit maybe of both. We need to be honest about what our 
target is but we definitely need to be producing more. Can you 
just speak to your self-described cliff here and what we do?
    Dr. Wood. Yes, absolutely. Thank you for the question.
    You know, just a quick thought on what you said about 
recycling batteries. We have to recognize that a lot of cars 
that were sold here in the United States, as they come to the 
end of their life, are probably going to be sold on to Mexico 
and batteries are going to be taken out of vehicles there and 
they will enter a different ecosystem. So, as you said, 
recycling doesn't always stay within the country. Just an 
important point there.
    I think that the cliff that we are heading toward is a 
very, very real one, and you know, to use a phrase that is 
common here in Washington, we need to be clear-eyed about the 
challenges. And that means that we need to recognize that 
unless dramatic action is taken today--massive investment into 
the mining sector--not only are we not going to have the 
critical minerals that we know we need today, we are not going 
to have those critical minerals that we do not know that we are 
going to need in the future. The mining industry is 
fundamentally important to the clean energy transition. It is 
one of the things that too many groups in this country do not 
understand. What they say is--they say, now mining is dirty. 
Mining is 19th century. No, mining is the basis of the 21st 
century clean economy. And that is one thing that we need to 
emphasize over and over again.
    Now, is my preference for pushing back those deadlines or 
those targets? Absolutely not. You know, I am the father of a 
20-month-old little girl, who is, you know, hopefully going to 
have a bright future in a world that is sustainable. I want 
those targets to be met. But we have to recognize how 
complicated it is and it is not enough just to say, well let's 
have more recycling, let's have more tax credits. We need to 
approach this in much more of a strategic way that recognizes 
that this is about the future of the United States. This is 
about not just our climate goals, but our geopolitical goals. 
This is about a global competition that we are currently 
engaged in with China. The Chinese recognize it much better 
than we do.
    Senator Murkowski. Well, I appreciate what you are saying 
about being clear-eyed, and I also thank you for bringing up 
the discussion about the resources under the seabed--the 
National Seabed Authority--and the fact that the United States 
really is not at the table in these conversations. I sent a 
letter to the Secretary of Energy in February asking why this 
is not part of the discussion and shouldn't it be? I think 
there is a recognition, as you say, that there are enormous 
resources that are there, and others will be accessing them, 
and how they do it and perhaps in way and a manner that is not 
the best environmental practices. So if we are not going to do 
it here, we cannot just close our eyes to extraction in other 
countries or under the seabed, where environmental issues may 
be something that we wish that we had paid attention to.
    I am well over my time, but thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Senator Barrasso [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Murkowski.
    Senator Cantwell.
    Senator Cantwell. Okay, thank you.
    Well, continuing on this theme, and I want to, again, thank 
Senator Murkowski for her work when she was Chair of this 
Committee on these important issues. She did constantly raise 
critical minerals, but this theme could not be more specific 
because they are important, obviously, for missile guidance 
systems, satellites, and microchips. And so, here we are in 
this big discussion about what we are going to do to get a 
better supply chain on microchips and we are trying to get this 
bill right now and get our colleagues to appoint conferees and 
get the conference going. But one reason we need them is for 
electric vehicles, which we were just discussing. We have been 
on this price rollercoaster now, but we want drivers to pay 
three to five times less per mile than conventional vehicles 
and we know we can do that. So we have to get chips, and we 
have to get continuation of the investment in critical 
minerals. And while we have a shortage today, the need is going 
to double and triple. So we have to get going, and there is no 
time to wait with these outrageous prices.
    So I wanted to ask and emphasize, to manufacture the number 
of EVs we need to reach by 2030, one projection is that the 
critical minerals, you know, would create this incredible 
demand, and of course, we just discussed that we don't want to 
do demand and support by other countries that we are trying to 
get off of their agreements. One thing is, I really want to 
understand from the witnesses, innovation that is necessary to 
drive down the quantity of critical minerals to produce an EV 
battery over time. I hear that there is work to be done in this 
particular area. I see, Mr. Britton, you are nodding your head. 
Maybe you could take that, followed by Mr. Howell and Mr. 
Straubel.
    I understand that batteries used in EVs have dramatically 
increased in density over time, and the average cost of a 
lithium-ion battery has decreased by almost 90 percent in the 
last decade. How do you see the innovation in material science 
breakthroughs giving us an economy of scale to bring down the 
critical mineral price?
    Mr. Britton. I will be quick and turn it over to Mr. 
Howell, but the solid-state batteries, I think, we all have a 
lot of hope in. There are companies like QuantumScape, Sparkz, 
who just announced 900 jobs in West Virginia. That is a really 
important development and it could not come soon enough. The 
reason it is important is that one, the charging times may 
accelerate dramatically, but also, it doesn't require as much, 
if any, cobalt, and I think that is an important part of the 
supply chain considerations.
    Senator Cantwell. Mr. Howell.
    Mr. Howell. Thank you, Senator Cantwell, for that very, 
very important question. We have such a wide-ranging portfolio 
of research and development and innovations in the pipeline for 
next-generation battery chemistries targeted to reduce the 
amount of critical minerals that are needed in the future for 
those batteries, and increasing the performance and decreasing 
cost. So some of the things, such as solid-state batteries, 
which would enable lithium metal systems, which would replace 
the need for graphite in these batteries, but also coupling 
that with earth-abundant materials on the cathode side, such as 
lithium-sulfur, are non-cobalt, non-nickel cathodes as well. So 
innovation is very, very important. We have a robust R&D 
program poised to take advantage of our innovation space here 
in the United States, including our national laboratory and 
university system, but also our innovators in industry as well.
    Senator Cantwell. Thank you.
    Mr. Straubel, did you want to add something to that?
    Mr. Straubel. Sure, thank you. I am actually on the Board 
of Directors at QuantumScape, so I see a lot of that company. I 
think while a lot of these advanced technologies have promise, 
they often have a chance to shift from one critical material to 
another. So I think we have to be a little cautious there. 
Solid-state batteries have excellent performance, charge time, 
as noted, but they actually use more lithium per kilogram, or 
per battery, than maybe some others. We also may end up moving 
the nickel consumption a little bit higher. So these definitely 
are exciting, but there are a lot of trade-offs, and it is 
quite a complex field. I think we need to keep pressure and 
keep focus on how we actually secure enough of these materials.
    Maybe one other point I would like to highlight is just 
that having a manufacturing base of how to refine and convert 
these critical materials into the battery components gives us 
flexibility. Right now, if we are buying the manufactured 
subcomponent from China, for instance, we do not have much 
flexibility. That determines the performance of the battery. If 
we are able to source various types of nickel concentrate or 
lithium concentrate from any one of four or five different 
mines or countries, we have a lot more security and a lot more 
flexibility to be able to multisource and adjust to problems in 
the field.
    I would argue that perhaps investing in that manufacturing 
base so we can flexibly source is as critical if not more 
critical than increasing the supply of just the raw critical 
materials.
    Senator Cantwell. Well, this is one of the reasons why I 
know we are going to have a big debate when we go to conference 
on this bill, about supply chain issues, and I think some of my 
colleagues will say, `why would you spend any money on supply 
chain?' Well, this is why we would spend money on supply chain. 
Because you have to figure this out. Individual companies can 
do what they are trying to do--to isolate themselves to project 
on various minerals. But we really need to have a more 
sophisticated plan than that. So I hope our colleagues will 
support money and resources for us at the federal level to be 
more aggressive here.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Barrasso. Senator Hoeven.
    Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Howell, at the University of North Dakota, we have the 
Energy Environmental Research Center, and they are working with 
the Department of Energy on a pilot plant project to extract 
rare earth minerals from our lignite coal. As you know, we have 
a very robust lignite coal-fired electric industry in North 
Dakota. And so, you know, I guess I just want your thoughts and 
input on that whole concept of extracting these rare earth 
minerals from coal, and what you think we can do to to improve 
it, to make it more feasible, make it more cost-effective and 
commercially viable, all those things. What are the kinds of 
things we can and should be doing to make that happen?
    Mr. Howell. Thank you, Senator Hoeven, for your question.
    Extracting key materials and critical materials from 
unconventional resources like coal, coal mine tailings, and 
coal ash is a very important concept that we are pursuing, not 
only for rare earth elements, but also for lithium and other 
battery materials as well. So we are working closely with the 
Office of Fossil Energy Carbon Management within the Department 
of Energy to develop demonstration programs to understand what 
the opportunity space is for recovering and retrieving critical 
minerals from mine tailings and coal and coal ash. That work is 
ongoing, and in many cases just getting started. So I am not 
really sure what the opportunity is, but that is the next 
step--to try to understand, first, how much rare earth can we 
extract, and then, can we do it affordably and in a responsible 
and sustainable manner?
    Senator Hoeven. Mr. Forney, I am going to go down that same 
track with you. General Atomics, who, of course, we work with a 
lot in North Dakota and appreciate all that you are doing in so 
many different areas, but the same kind of question for you. I 
see that you are working on a rare earth separation process 
demonstration plant in Wyoming, which is also a tremendous 
state in terms of energy production and certainly at the very 
forefront of utilizing coal. So what elements do you hope to 
extract in that project, and back to the same question, how do 
we--you know, this is a priority. We need to have a sense of 
urgency about getting these rare earth minerals. What do we 
need to do to make this happen sooner rather than later?
    Mr. Forney. Well, thanks for your question, Senator.
    Yes, we are busy in Wyoming with the Department of Energy 
and the focus on the plant in Upton, Wyoming is about permanent 
magnet material. And if you look at our resources for missile 
guidance systems, or critical resources required for new 
submarine electric motors--that is a different kind of EV, 
obviously, than what is being talked about by panelist members 
here. But we are very, very focused on the permanent magnets 
today. However, some of that material also is used when we have 
to dope some of our crystal for laser technologies. Whether it 
is in space or on ground or in air, it doesn't matter, and the 
neodymium is critical for that.
    By the way, that same material is very critical as the 
medical community uses more and more lasers for diagnosis and 
treatment. So that material is going to become abundantly 
required in the next 10 years, much more than it is today.
    Senator Hoeven. So we do a tremendous amount on UAS, 
particularly again in the Grand Forks region. We want to 
continue to do that. We have partnerships there like none 
other. We continue to work to build those. One of the things, 
you know, obviously China is, you know, very dominant in that 
whole small UAS space. And of course, with General Atomics, you 
are very involved with UAS. You are the leading company in the 
world in that regard. What can we do, particularly because it 
requires so much stored energy, how do we do more in that whole 
realm with the small UAS and this whole concept of how we store 
energy? It obviously goes to batteries, lithium, all that kind 
of stuff, you know? What are your thoughts there?
    Mr. Forney. Thanks again for the stimulating question. 
General Atomics actually is working on this problem. I spoke 
earlier about the fact that we have unavailability of the right 
batteries that we had been qualifying for our UASs, so we had 
to actually choose a battery that may not be as good. It 
doesn't have the same qualities. It doesn't have the same 
characteristics that we had previously selected from Asia, but 
we did find a battery in North America and we were able to 
change the battery management system to be able to use that.
    But secondly, we are not stopping there. As you know, we 
are a very innovative company, so we are working actually on 
some of the raw material requirements, such as using silicon 
carbide for cathode development so that we can increase the 
amount of energy storage that we get--the capacity of the 
battery. And we don't stop there. We are also working on fuel 
cell systems and a combination of fuel cell systems and battery 
systems. And lastly, of course, you know about our legacy on 
nuclear reactors. So fortunately there are many nuclear 
activities right now that GA is very involved with, both in 
space and terrestrially.
    Senator Hoeven. Yes, and I really appreciate what you are 
doing, of course, you, on the electromagnetic side, but then 
combined with the aviation side. It really is exciting and 
incredibly important work. So I appreciate it very much.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Barrasso. Senator Hirono.
    Senator Hirono. Thank you. I want to thank the panel. So it 
is obvious, if it was not obvious before, that there is a huge 
demand for these critical minerals and the scale of the need is 
massive. I do not know if some of the minerals that we need can 
be met more efficiently through recycling and maybe some of the 
other minerals we cannot do it through recycling very well. So 
I would like to really focus in on--so what are, maybe, three 
or four steps that we should do because we are so behind the 
eight ball now? So, for example, and I just toss it out to the 
panel, is updating our 150-year mining law--is that one of the 
very specific things we can do? We need to modernize, yes? I 
see Dr. Wood saying yes. What about the rest of you?
    Then, recycling, Dr. Wood, you said recycling will only 
enable us to get 10 percent, but you say that is not 
insignificant. So what more should government be doing to 
encourage recycling to extract some of these critical minerals?
    That would be Mr. Howell, you are with DOE?
    Mr. Howell. Yes.
    Senator Hirono. Anything specific we can do to encourage 
recycling?
    Mr. Howell. Thank you for that question, Senator Hirono. 
Certainly, a very important question. So in terms of updating 
our mining laws, that was part of our 100-day supply chain 
report on high-capacity batteries. That was one of the needs 
and action items for the Federal Government. It is important in 
terms of recycling. We have talked a lot about recycling 
electric vehicle batteries, and there is that 15-year gap 
between a new vehicle and when it is really salvaged. There is 
also a large opportunity in consumer electronic batteries, 
which almost 100 percent by weight of that cathode is cobalt--
lithium cobalt. So we need to develop more of a national 
recycling plan in order to capture, not only electric vehicle 
batteries, but consumer electric batteries as well.
    Senator Hirono. I think one of the testimonies I went 
through said we should have a whole-of-government approach to 
what we need to do. It is not just Interior that looks at the 
mining law. It is not just DOE that figures out how we are 
going to meet the needs of electric vehicles and all that. Is 
there a group of people converging within the Administration to 
properly address all these issues?
    Mr. Howell. Yes, Senator. I chair the Federal Consortium 
for Advanced Batteries, which includes 12 federal agencies, and 
within those federal agencies, almost 50 offices. And so, we 
have banded together, over two years now, to develop the 
National Blueprint for Lithium Batteries, which includes a lot 
of key actions that we can develop together as federal agencies 
in our normal, everyday business to achieve key actions to 
develop a robust supply chain for batteries, from minerals to 
processing, all the way through battery component production, 
cell production, and recycling.
    Senator Hirono. Some of these then do not require any 
legislative action? You can do it administratively?
    Mr. Howell. That is correct. Some of the actions that we 
are pursuing do not require legislative action. It requires a 
lot of collaboration. For instance, we are developing a 
strategic plan to partner with allied nations that could 
possibly help us and partner with us in order to supply 
critical minerals. And that is led by the Department of State, 
but the other agencies are in support of that in developing 
those concepts and those strategies.
    Senator Hirono. So, has the group that you are talking 
about issued a report of some sort?
    Mr. Howell. The National Blueprint for Lithium Batteries, 
and also that particular group was instrumental in developing 
the 100-day supply chain report.
    Senator Hirono. What about changes to the 150-year-old 
mining law? Has your group come up with any specific changes 
that should be considered?
    Mr. Howell. We are starting to work with the Bureau of Land 
Management and the Department of the Interior to support that. 
Particularly from our perspective, they have the lead there. 
Our perspective would be to support through technical analysis 
and technical assistance as needed.
    Senator Hirono. Do you have a sense of urgency about the 
need to address our need for critical minerals?
    Mr. Howell. Yes.
    Senator Hirono. Does that mean that, as you are looking at 
the 150-year-old law, is there a time frame for you to provide 
us with some suggested changes?
    Mr. Howell. We do not--I would defer to my colleagues in 
the Department of the Interior first on that. We do not have a 
time frame at this point.
    Senator Hirono. Well, there needs to be a sense of urgency 
across the board, not just from the Administration, but within 
those of you who represent--did you want to add something? 
Raise your hand.
    Mr. Straubel. Yes, if I could, maybe briefly. I think one 
thing you asked was, what could we be doing maybe better to 
help incentivize some of this. Today, there are no restrictions 
or rules against exporting a lot of these same materials. We 
are actually readily, frequently exporting all of our devices--
critical minerals back to Asia in the form of, almost, garbage.
    Senator Hirono. Yes.
    Mr. Straubel. At the same time, it is almost impossible to 
import these materials. We have worked to try and import 
consumer electronics batteries from South and Central America. 
Can't do it. It is hazardous waste. It is unwanted garbage. We 
have really asymmetric and incorrect, I would say, import/
export rules around some of these things. And at the same time, 
we are focusing on how to expedite mining, but we are 
exporting, freely, the stuff that we have already mined, and 
are not allowing new imports.
    Senator Hirono. Are you suggesting that we prevent the 
exportation of these items?
    Mr. Straubel. I think it might be worth considering how we 
want to incentivize keeping the critical materials in the 
country.
    Senator Hirono. Okay. So, Mr. Howell, I hope your group is 
taking those kinds of suggestions to heart.
    One more, if you don't mind?
    Senator Barrasso. Go right ahead, Senator Hirono.
    Mr. Britton. Senator, thank you. Well, two notes that I 
think might be helpful in context--in the USICA, or the America 
COMPETES bill, they actually talk about the importance of 
preserving those end-of-life batteries for recycling so they 
become that critical mineral stockpile. So that is important. 
But also, as part of the Bipartisan Infrastructure bill, this 
morning I was looking at the critical mineral pieces. There is 
actually a report. So, what you are suggesting is what the 
bipartisan bill instructed the Administration to do to bring 
together that working group. They are due to report a year upon 
the date of the passage of the Bipartisan Infrastructure bill, 
so your team, I am sure will be looking forward to that date.
    Senator Hirono. And you don't need to take a whole year.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Hirono. Speed it up, but make sure that it is 
something we can rely upon.
    Thank you very much.
    Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Hirono.
    I want to thank all of the witnesses for being here and for 
joining us this morning for this very helpful discussion. 
Members are going to have until the close of business tomorrow 
to submit additional questions for the record.
     And the Committee stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 11:53 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                      APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

                              ----------                              

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                   [all