A California model for solar sites could be a boon for critical mineral mining

The boom in electric buses, cars, trucks and trains has fueled a corresponding rush for the minerals needed to produce the batteries that power them. This global scale-up in what is essentially a brand-new supply chain is part of the vital transition necessary to tackle the climate crisis, moving us toward electric transportation and away from fossil fuels.

But it also has created a moment to ensure we don’t exacerbate the longstanding problems associated with mining — a challenge the federal government has just attempted to address with the release of a new interagency report with recommendations for mining reform in the U.S. Much of this work though will take years to implement, whether here in the United States or in mineral-producing countries around the world. 

So, what can be done in the meantime?

The federal report describes the need for permitting agencies to conduct better upfront planning to ensure new mining activity is not sited in sensitive areas that would likely produce conflict, litigation and delay. But more could be done now for the United States to ensure that electric vehicle battery minerals are mined as sustainably as possible, with ample community buy-in every step of the way. If we seize these opportunities, policymakers can better ensure that the mining industry avoids past harm.

Specifically, the country can take its cue from California, where a public-private partnership among state government, academic institutions and nonprofits pioneered a stakeholder-led process to map lands for large-scale solar development in key regions in the state. That process resulted in the identification of hundreds of thousands of “least conflict” acres, which participants as diverse as Tribes, ranchers, endangered species advocates and developers agreed would be feasible to develop without harming communities or important resources. This approach is now being replicated in other states.

Today, mining is controversial, and new mines have engendered opposition from some of these same participants, worried about impacts on tribal cultural resources, endangered species, groundwater, air quality and more. But with upfront planning and consensus building, policymakers can identify areas where mines can be least harmful to communities, wildlife and the environment, as well as where existing or abandoned mines could potentially expand with fewer harms (a process sometimes referred to as “remining”). 

Furthermore, this planning could surface the technologies and community benefits that could improve outcomes for neighboring communities. Many of these local stakeholders could otherwise greatly benefit from the economic opportunities that mining can provide in rural parts of the country that have been too often neglected when it comes to outside investment.

Following California’s model, as a first step, federal policymakers could convene a broad swath of stakeholders and provide data and maps on the locations of key mineral resources and existing mines. Participants, including impacted communities, could then offer their input and data on lands that are sensitive to them for a variety of reasons. 

These stakeholder maps can then be overlaid on the mineral maps through software tools such as those developed by the Conservation Biology Institute, which helped lead the California mapping effort along with my research center at UC Berkeley Law. The discussions can also identify a set of community benefits as well as preferred technologies to minimize harm to communities and the environment. Policymakers could then potentially streamline permitting for the consensus-based mines.

While it’s impossible to know the outcome of such a process in advance, the experience in California indicates that there’s a lot more “low conflict” land in this vast country than might otherwise be assumed. And identifying sensitive areas in advance can help industry and policymakers avoid poor siting decisions and conflicts before it’s too late when litigation, delays and disillusionment can set in. At the same time, multi-stakeholder discussions can yield important information about the values, mitigation measures and collaboration opportunities that can better inform siting decisions going forward.

This stakeholder-based mapping work will certainly not replace the need for real reforms to the mining sector, which include updating the U.S. Mining Law of 1872, now over 150 years old and still the primary U.S. federal law governing prospecting and mining. 

For example, the Clean Energy Minerals Reform Act would greatly improve governance over U.S. mining, such as by imposing a federal minerals royalty and establishing a Hardrock Minerals Reclamation Fund for the cleanup of abandoned mines. Policymakers must also ensure transparent sourcing of minerals globally, require battery reuse and recycling to reduce demand for new mining and promote alternatives to driving such as transit and neighborhoods that are biking and walking friendly.

But these reforms will take time, and the hard rock mining industry is not waiting, given the increasing demand for these minerals to help curb the climate crisis. 

As we embark on this crucially important transition, we can avoid replicating the injustices and damages fostered by the legacy fossil fuel economy. Rather than let business-as-usual siting decisions continue, policymakers can protect communities, wildlife and the environment through community-based mapping processes. The result would be fewer conflicts, a more sustainable supply chain and economic and environmental wins for the many tribal and rural communities that desperately need them.

Ethan Elkind is the director of the climate program at UC Berkeley Law’s Center for Law, Energy and the Environment (CLEE) and co-author of the new CLEE/Ceres joint report, “Electric Vehicle Batteries: A Guidebook for Responsible Corporate Engagement Throughout the Supply Chain.”