Biden administration weighs price support for US critical minerals amid Chinese pressure

The Biden administration is considering using federal dollars to prop up U.S. critical minerals projects being hammered by an influx of cheaper Chinese materials, an Energy Department official familiar with the potential move told POLITICO.

Under the policy, the department would set a price floor and agree to pay the difference when market prices fall below that threshold for critical minerals produced by certain U.S. projects. The effort comes in response to delays and cancellations of many U.S. minerals processing projects, including those that were set to receive a collective $1 billion in grants from the Biden administration.

Such a federal backstop would help meet a major goal of the Biden administration’s climate and manufacturing agenda — boosting the domestic production of minerals for clean energy technologies such as electric vehicles, a global supply chain that China now dominates. It would add to a growing trend of bipartisan support for government intervention in the economy, including former President Donald Trump’s call for widespread tariffs and Vice President Kamala Harris’ push for tougher penalties on price gouging .

The official, who works in the department’s Manufacturing and Energy Supply Chains Office, was granted anonymity to discuss a policy that is still under consideration.

Chinese oversupply has crashed the price of lithium, nickel and other minerals key to the clean energy transition, making it harder for owners of U.S. minerals projects to secure financing despite grants and other support they’re receiving from President Joe Biden’s administration. Those struggles have led some in the industry and the administration to believe the government must do more than provide an initial capital investment.

The goal of the policy under consideration would be to help reassure investors and customers that domestic suppliers can overcome China’s efforts to maintain its stranglehold on the critical minerals industry.

It’s unclear how much the policy would cost. The details are still being discussed, but the backstop would likely be available for a limited time and apply only to projects that the department has determined are close to being competitive in pricing but are being challenged by foreign market manipulation.

“If we move forward on anything like this, the intent would be to give the nudge that is needed to set off the flywheel, versus create a permanent subsidy or cushion for a particular sector or company going forward,” the Energy Department official said.

Even if minerals prices stay high enough that the government never needs to disburse the funds, the promise to do so can help projects secure purchase agreements from customers that are crucial to financing their construction.

The official said most of what the MESC office has done revolves around investing in the construction side. “But it feels warranted, given what we’re hearing from the market, to think through, are there more creative ways where we can support projects so that they can … have the financial certainty to actually scale up?” the official said.

Companies and industry groups have launched a quiet push for a backstop in recent months, though some in the sector remain skeptical of the government wading into complex commodities markets. There’s also the question of whether DOE can set up — and fund — such an effort without explicit authorization from Congress, especially after the Supreme Court limited federal agencies’ discretion earlier this year by overturning a decades-old legal doctrine.

The DOE official said the agency is looking at what it can do within its existing authorities, which could include repurposing some grant funding intended for minerals projects, such as leftover funds from struggling projects that dropped out of grant negotiations.

The industry laid out its predicament to DOE in response to a request for information that the MESC office published this spring, seeking feedback on the dynamics of the critical minerals market. Companies expressed “strong support” for the department to implement “demand-side tools,” such as a price floor or contract for differences, to address the market concerns, according to a summary of the responses the agency released on Friday .

To secure financing, minerals project owners typically need to sign agreements with potential buyers such as automakers or battery cell manufacturers that show they will generate enough revenue to pay back investors.

But those customers have been loath to sign long-term purchase agreements with U.S. suppliers given the possibility that mineral prices will keep falling, and the fact that American-made minerals are more expensive than Chinese ones to begin with, companies say. One estimate last year put the price of North American graphite at more than double that of imported material, for example.

“You can’t have the facility built or the money to buy the equipment without having commitments from customers because you can’t get the financing without it,” said Chip Dunn, chair of Anovion Technologies, which is developing a $1 billion synthetic graphite plant in Georgia. “This is where the government needs to play a role.”

U.S. producers and government officials have accused China of subsidizing its producers to flood the global market with cheap minerals produced with lower social and environmental standards. A top State Department official, Jose Fernandez, told POLITICO this month that China is engaged in “predatory pricing” to frustrate U.S. efforts to develop its own high-standard sources of minerals.

American projects also face significantly longer timelines to get to market due to permitting delays. And some U.S. minerals suppliers argue that the Biden administration’s rules implementing Inflation Reduction Act tax credits for electric vehicles and clean energy manufacturing have left too much leeway for upstream customers to continue purchasing minerals from China.

The Biden administration has already spent billions trying to kick-start a domestic critical minerals industry, particularly in the processing sector that is overwhelmingly dominated by Beijing.

In late 2022, when minerals prices were near their peak, DOE selected 21 processing and recycling projects to receive a collective $2.8 billion from the bipartisan infrastructure law . But in 2023, as the projects were negotiating terms of the grants, the price of lithium fell by 75 percent, and the price of cobalt, nickel and graphite each dropped by between 30 and 45 percent, according to the International Energy Agency .

A third of the projects, which were set to receive a collective $1 billion, failed to make it through the negotiations to receive the awards, according to the Energy Department’s website .

The projects faced a “perfect storm” of pricing pressures, said Ben Steinberg, who represents several of the grant recipients as executive vice president at Venn Strategies and spokesperson for the Battery Materials and Technology Coalition.

“High interest rates, inflationary pressures and oversupply of minerals from China put a lot of additional burden on these companies, who have the monumental task of raising or finding private capital for three quarters of these investments,” Steinberg said.

Several of the companies in the grant round have instead sought loans from DOE’s Loan Programs Office, which has more than $200 billion in estimated loan authority and can provide a greater share of a project’s financing. That office announced in May that critical minerals mining and extraction projects are now eligible for loans, and it also indicated to companies in a memo and webinar that month that it may allow projects to receive both a grant and a loan on a “project specific” basis.

But some companies say the Energy Department needs to go beyond supporting capital construction by implementing a backstop mechanism, which would guarantee that specific producers can receive a minimum price for their minerals even if market prices slip.

“Offtake backstops help derisk project development and enable developers to access project financing,” the think tank Federation of American Scientists, which researches science-based policy solutions, wrote in a recent report calling on DOE to create such a mechanism.

The idea may be able to find some traction on both sides of the aisle in Congress and in Europe, which is also seeking to wean itself off Chinese minerals.

In its bipartisan policy report last year , the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party said the U.S. is “dangerously dependent” on Chinese minerals and recommended creating a national mineral strategic reserve. That would go a step further than a backstop by physically purchasing and selling the minerals to stabilize prices, as the U.S. does with oil in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve . The committee has convened several workshops with companies to discuss the issue this summer.

The Paris-based International Energy Agency also announced plans in February for a critical minerals security program, similar to a program it operates for oil that requires member countries to stockpile at least 90 days’ supply to stabilize prices in the event of a market disruption.

Still, some industry watchers remain skeptical about whether a government backstop is the right strategy to support the industry.

Abigail Hunter, executive director of the Center for Critical Minerals Strategy at the think tank SAFE, said she has reservations about the government “getting their hands into commodity market pricing, which is very cyclical and complex.”

“Policies need to be carefully calibrated to the specific commodity price dynamics, potentially peter off after projects reach economies of scale in production, and [be] coupled with other government support, all so taxpayers don’t end up supporting projects — especially unviable ones — indefinitely,” Hunter said in an email.

Alex Fitzsimmons, head of government affairs at Sila Nanotechnologies — which is building a plant in Washington state to produce silicon anode material for EV batteries — said a government backstop should be “on the table as part of a suite of market signals,” but that companies also need to improve their products to stay competitive.

“Especially in this funding environment, companies have to find ways to separate themselves from a technology standpoint and a performance standpoint if they’re expecting to have customers pay a premium,” Fitzsimmons said.