Report: Biden to Use Wartime Powers to Boost EV Battery Production

Matt Posky
by Matt Posky

U.S. President Joe Biden is said to be considering utilizing wartime powers to spur domestic electric vehicle battery production. The administration reportedly wants to add the necessary raw materials to the Defense Production Act (DPA) penned at the start of the Korean War in 1950.

Originally designed to give the federal government more control of the U.S. economy (especially in regard to raw materials) throughout the Cold War, the law has also been leveraged by the Department of Defense to advance new technologies starting in the 1980s. In 2011, Barack Obama invoked the act to force telecommunications companies to provide detailed information to the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security. Donald Trump would later invoke the DPA to identify an array of products deemed critical to national security as the trade war with China heated up, and then again to spearhead domestic production of materials and goods pertaining to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Biden actually used it on his second day in office to further increase production of supplies related to the pandemic and then again in March of 2021 to supply equipment to Merck facilities manufacturing Johnson & Johnson vaccines. He invoked the Defense Protection Act a third time in September to supplement the supply of fire hoses intended to combat an unusually high number of wildfires taking place on the West Coast.

This time, the goal is to incorporate lithium, nickel, graphite, cobalt, and manganese into the government list of extra-important materials. According to Bloomberg, officials that leaked the plan (who it said asked to remain anonymous) believe the relevant mining companies could access $750 million under the Defense Production Act’s Title III fund. Funds and relief may also be established to encourage new battery recycling centers.

From Bloomberg:

Instead of loans or direct purchases for minerals, the directive would fund production at current operations, productivity and safety upgrades, and feasibility studies, the person said. In addition to EV batteries, the directive also would apply to large-capacity batteries.

Administration officials are working to ensure production will occur under strong environmental and labor standards, one of the people familiar said. Amid concerns from critics, including some Democratic members of Congress, aides are taking steps to make sure the presidential actions won’t skirt environmental reviews or permit regulations, the person said.

Several departments, including Energy and Interior, will oversee the effort, the person said.

The directive also would pave the way for Congress to allocate more resources to the effort, said Ben Steinberg, co-chair of the critical infrastructure group at D.C. lobbying firm Venn Strategies.

“The president’s signature is a big signal, but it’s incumbent on the Congress to appropriate dollars that are commensurate with the challenge,” Steinberg told the outlet, adding that the funding available via the DPA might not be sufficient since it currently has to cover numerous industries.

A bipartisan group of U.S. senators — including Joe Manchin (D-WV), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), James Risch (R-ID), and Bill Cassidy (R-LA) — previously asked the White House to consider leveraging the Defense Production Act to encourage localized battery production. The following weeks included rampant speculation that it was under consideration. But this is the first time we’ve heard the news that the Biden administration was planning to move forward.

Critics will undoubtedly point to this as an example of the Biden administration utilizing wartime provisions to advance its green agenda. But it’s not so cut and dried as that. One of my many criticisms regarding the transition to electric vehicles in the West was that it would overwhelmingly advantage Chinese battery producers that already dominate the market. Having the government provide domestic rivals with a leg up, while also focusing on the need to procure raw materials, seems prudent if the shift toward EVs is to continue at the desired breakneck pace. Though valid concerns will remain as to which parties will be getting favorable treatment, how funding will ultimately be allocated, and what that means in terms of the ongoing relationship between big business and the United States government.

The Biden administration has already set aside billions in funding for EVs in numerous infrastructure bills. But prices pertaining to their raw materials have been skyrocketing of late and have only been made worse due to the war in Ukraine. Bloomberg speculated that this could be a boon for mining operations and help tamp down costs while also serving as a way to endear the administration to an industry it previously shunned. Unfortunately, this runs the risk of placing the White House at odds with environmental activists that want people to drive all-electric vehicles without having to bore into the earth to acquire the necessary metals.

[Image: Orhan Cam/Shutterstock]

Matt Posky
Matt Posky

A staunch consumer advocate tracking industry trends and regulation. Before joining TTAC, Matt spent a decade working for marketing and research firms based in NYC. Clients included several of the world’s largest automakers, global tire brands, and aftermarket part suppliers. Dissatisfied with the corporate world and resentful of having to wear suits everyday, he pivoted to writing about cars. Since then, that man has become an ardent supporter of the right-to-repair movement, been interviewed on the auto industry by national radio broadcasts, driven more rental cars than anyone ever should, participated in amateur rallying events, and received the requisite minimum training as sanctioned by the SCCA. Handy with a wrench, Matt grew up surrounded by Detroit auto workers and managed to get a pizza delivery job before he was legally eligible. He later found himself driving box trucks through Manhattan, guaranteeing future sympathy for actual truckers. He continues to conduct research pertaining to the automotive sector as an independent contractor and has since moved back to his native Michigan, closer to where the cars are born. A contrarian, Matt claims to prefer understeer — stating that front and all-wheel drive vehicles cater best to his driving style.

More by Matt Posky

Comments
Join the conversation
7 of 139 comments
  • Kjhkjlhkjhkljh kljhjkhjklhkjh haaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahaha
  • Kjhkjlhkjhkljh kljhjkhjklhkjh *Why would anyone buy this* when the 2025 RamCharger is right around the corner, *faster* with vastly *better mpg* and stupid amounts of torque using a proven engine layout and motivation drive in use since 1920.
  • Kjhkjlhkjhkljh kljhjkhjklhkjh I hate this soooooooo much. but the 2025 RAMCHARGER is the CORRECT bridge for people to go electric. I hate dodge (thanks for making me buy 2 replacement 46RH's) .. but the ramcharger's electric drive layout is *vastly* superior to a full electric car in dense populous areas where charging is difficult and where moron luddite science hating trumpers sabotage charges or block them.If Toyota had a tundra in the same config i'd plop 75k cash down today and burn my pos chevy in the dealer parking lot
  • Kjhkjlhkjhkljh kljhjkhjklhkjh I own my house 100% paid for at age 52. the answer is still NO.-28k (realistically) would take 8 years to offset my gas truck even with its constant repair bills (thanks chevy)-Still takes too long to charge UNTIL solidsate batteries are a thing and 80% in 15 minutes becomes a reality (for ME anyways, i get others are willing to wait)For the rest of the market, especially people in dense cityscape, apartments dens rentals it just isnt feasible yet IMO.
  • ToolGuy I do like the fuel economy of a 6-cylinder engine. 😉
Next