\n<\/p>\n
Critical materials\u2014the collective term for metals and minerals essential for all kinds of advanced technology and clean energy\u2014are vital to the growth of artificial intelligence (AI), which has become pervasive in everyday life. AI hardware relies on familiar elements like aluminum, silicon <\/strong>and copper<\/strong>, and unfamiliar elements like gallium, germanium, palladium <\/strong>and neodymium<\/strong> to support the computational power, data transmission, and cooling systems required to process vast amounts of data at high speeds.<\/p>\n China\u2019s dominant role highlights global supply chain and geopolitical vulnerabilities. The United States and China have recently exchanged export restrictions and tariff threats. For participants in the AI revolution, these actions underscore the risks of over-reliance on a single supplier. Below we explore the essential materials powering AI, and the relative supply positions of both countries and other global sources.<\/p>\n Critical Material Supply Sources for AI Applications<\/strong><\/p>\n Though China produces more than half of the world\u2019s germanium (and also banned it for U.S.\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 export), the U.S. domestic alternatives include collecting it as a secondary byproduct of zinc mining in Alaska and Tennessee where germanium is co-located in small quantities in the same mineral deposits. In Tennessee, mining company Nyrstar has temporarily shuttered its zinc mine. Instead, it\u2019s exploring building a germanium and gallium recovery and processing facility<\/a> that the company says could produce enough of the two minerals to supply about 80% of America\u2019s demand.<\/p>\n Short-Term Policies and Long-Term Evaluations for Domestic Production The incoming administration\u2019s announced intentions to streamline\u2014or even waive\u2014certain environmental reviews aim to provide companies with accelerated regulatory pathways to foster domestic production. Potential legislative reforms could include redefining NEPA\u2019s scope and executive branch agencies may implement categorical exclusions or regulations to consolidate permitting steps under a single agency. Proposals to waive certain requirements outright have also emerged, particularly for projects deemed critical to national security or economic resilience. While these changes could provide temporary relief to developers, they raise uncertainties about their long-term applicability and resilience, especially in light of litigation risks and the broader statutory framework.<\/p>\n State and local permitting requirements further compound these challenges. For example, some states impose their own environmental review standards that can be as rigorous as, or even more stringent than, federal mandates. Local opposition, public comment periods, and judicial challenges frequently add additional layers of complexity.<\/p>\n Whether companies can rely on relaxed short-term executive branch policies remains an open question. And given the decades-long investment horizon of extraction projects and the relevance of state and local processes and background statute, the durability of federal streamlining policy changes is a critical consideration. Executive orders and agency directives can be reversed by future administrations, creating uncertainty for projects that depend on streamlined processes for financial viability.<\/p>\n Developers, along with their legal, technological, and financial advisers, must thoroughly assess the stability of federal policies and consider scenarios where projects revert to more stringent regulatory environments. This may mean adopting holistic approach to regulatory compliance, one that includes active stakeholder engagement and detailed planning for each stage of the permitting process. Moreover, contingency planning is essential. This includes preparing for potential shifts in regulatory requirements or litigation outcomes that could impact project feasibility over the years of planned operation and decommissioning. Addressing these multifaceted challenges proactively will be critical for companies aiming to navigate the regulatory landscape and bring critical material projects to fruition.<\/p>\n RELATED ARTICLES<\/strong><\/p>\n\n
\n
<\/strong>The CHIPS and Science Act and Department of Energy grants provide incentives for U.S.-based production of critical materials. However, developers face a well-documented hurdle in navigating the intricate web of environmental permitting and compliance. Key statutes, such as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and other federal and state regulations impose rigorous review processes. These regulatory aspects have long challenged projects and proposals for mineral extraction in the U.S., complicating efforts to meet growing demand for critical materials essential to clean energy and technology sectors.<\/p>\n\n