Quantcast

Tucson Standard

Monday, December 23, 2024

House passes Ciscomani's critical mineral consistency act with bipartisan support

Webp swtze9rvkihqioqtwsxs35v9aohu

Congressman Juan Ciscomani | Official U.S. House headshot

Congressman Juan Ciscomani | Official U.S. House headshot

U.S. Congressman Juan Ciscomani celebrated the House's bipartisan approval of his bill, the Critical Mineral Consistency Act. The legislation aims to align definitions between Critical Materials by the Department of Energy (DOE) and Critical Minerals by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). This alignment seeks to eliminate confusion and ensure both lists receive equal benefits, reducing U.S. reliance on foreign sources for these resources. The bill passed with a 245-155 vote.

The legislation, known as H.R. 8446, proposes adding DOE's list of Critical Materials to USGS's list of Critical Minerals. This change would remove any disadvantage for DOE materials regarding eligibility for energy-focused benefits, thus providing equal advantages to both lists.

"Critical Minerals are essential for our economy, national security, and clean energy technologies," said Ciscomani. "As demand for these strategic resources continues to increase, the United States must ensure access to a reliable supply." He added that his bill would strengthen domestic supply chains and include materials like copper and silicon carbide on the Critical Minerals list.

Western Caucus Chairman Dan Newhouse expressed support for the bill: "This important legislation ensures the USGS and DOE remain in sync, giving clarity to industry and improving interagency coordination."

Several organizations back this initiative, including the National Mining Association (NMA), Business Council for Sustainable Energy (BCSE), National Electrical Manufacturing Association (NEMA), Zero Emission Transportation Association (ZETA), Transformer Manufacturing Association of America (TMAA), Copper Development Association (CDA), U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Mint Innovation, and National Association of Manufacturers (NAM).

Background information highlights differences in how DOE and USGS developed their respective lists. While USGS focused solely on supply using data from 2015-2018 when finalizing its methodology in 2022, DOE considered essentiality and supply risk with future projections when announcing its list in 2023.