- The United States has a critical mineral supply problem, made clear by the Russia-Ukraine war and the nation's dependency on China.
- There is a legislative effort to streamline definitions of those efforts, co-sponsored by Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah.
- The hope is to achieve consistency in definitions and classifications by two federal agencies.
The U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Geological Survey have different lists when it comes to the definition of a critical mineral.
The inconsistency creates uncertainty for industry and the supply chain, and Sens. Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., want to fix that.
Kelly partnered with Lee in the introduction of the Critical Mineral Consistency Act of 2025, to remove the disparities among the lists.
The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee approved the bill to advance last week.
The act attempts to align the Department of Energy and Department of Interior lists to decrease confusion among industries and federal agencies.
These conflicting federal standards hinder America from building “resilient supply chains,” Kelly said, according to a story in The Center Square.
At its introduction earlier this year, Lee — who chairs Senate Energy and Natural Resources — said the act is vital.
“The Critical Mineral Consistency Act of 2025 will make it easier for America’s energy producers to harness our nation’s abundant resources and support affordable, reliable energy production. Aligning the DOE’s Critical Materials List and the DOI’s Critical Minerals List will increase transparency within our federal agencies, ensuring all of our nation’s critical resources are developed, traded, and produced equally, and strengthen our supply chains,” Lee said.
Kelly was equally adamant.
“Copper and other critical materials are essential to our energy security, manufacturing and national defense, but federal bureaucracy has created confusion for producers,” Kelly said.
“We’re cutting through the red tape to make sure Arizona’s copper producers and other critical material suppliers can access the resources they need to strengthen our supply chains and support American jobs.”
Kelly said the conflicting federal standards hinder America from building “resilient supply chains,” and a coordinated national strategy helps reduce dependence on adversarial nations.
In 2024, similar legislation was introduced to streamline definitions.
At that time, Rep. Pete Stauber, R-Minn., said amendments to the Energy Act of 2020 would streamline classifications between the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Geological Survey.
“The two agencies use different criteria and do not take into consideration the same parameters leading to sometimes very different lists. Notably, the USGS list does not take into account the forward looking data and analysis such as international demand and growth trajectories that the DOE list does,” he said. “Accordingly, the USGS list omits important minerals like copper,” and others.
This latest measure has the support of the mining industry.
“We firmly believe all minerals are critical, and this commonsense legislation is an important step forward,” said Rich Nolan, president and chief executive officer of the National Mining Association.
“The bipartisan and bicameral Critical Mineral Consistency Act is a win for American miners, for domestic supply chain security and is essential to ensuring domestic production can increasingly meet soaring demand.”
Nolan also praised a late night move Tuesday by the House Natural Resources Committee in its partial passage of a reconciliation measure aimed at boosting energy development on public lands.
According to committee chairman Rep. Bruce Westerman, R-Ark., the bill has the potential to generate $18 billion via a sharp uptick in coal, oil, gas and mineral leases.
The package drew angry criticism from Democrats and environmental groups, as well as others, who accuse the GOP of stripping protections from public lands.
Taxpayers for Common Sense had this to say:
“Lawmakers should reject any attempt to jam these policies into a budget deal. Reconciliation shouldn’t be a Trojan horse for giveaways and loopholes that bypass normal process and public scrutiny. America’s public lands and natural resources belong to the taxpayers—and they should not be sold off for bargain basement prices."
But minerals, and their definition, remain a top issue.
Utah’s role
The state is home to a bevy of critical minerals, some of which are found only here.
Utah has the potential to offer up to 40 of the 50 minerals as critical to the economic health and national security of the United States.
At a recent trade mission to Canada by Utah Gov. Spencer Cox, the state’s mining powerhouse status was underscored. During the trip, findings from a survey were revealed from a 2024 report by the Canadian Fraser Institute.
The survey placed six Canadian provinces and territories, including Quebec, in its top-10 list of locations with abundant mineral deposits and favorable policy environments. However, it found that the best place, not just in North America, but in the world, for mining investment was Utah.
Accordingly, this new effort to streamline definitions has the backing of the Utah Mining Association.
“The bill brings consistency to federal mineral designations and signals to the private sectors the importance of continued investment and development of mining operations targeting copper and other important minerals which have heretofore been left off the federal critical minerals list,” said Brian Somers, president of the association.