Get the latest as our experts share their insights on global energy policy.
Two economic planning documents released at the March meeting of China's National People’s Congress include the term "energy powerhouse" for the first time.
Hear in-depth conversations with the world’s top energy and climate leaders from government, business, academia, and civil society.
Much of the world’s attention today is understandably focused on conflict in the Middle East, and the immediate implications for energy markets and global security. But other regions...
Reports by Milo McBride, Tom Moerenhout, Diego Rivera Rivota + 1 more • May 19, 2025
This report represents the research and views of the authors. It does not necessarily represent the views of the Center on Global Energy Policy. The piece may be subject to further revision.
Contributions to SIPA for the benefit of CGEP are general use gifts, which gives the Center discretion in how it allocates these funds. More information is available here. Rare cases of sponsored projects are clearly indicated.
Corporate Partnerships
Occidental Petroleum Corporation
Tellurian Inc.
Foundations and Individual Donors
Anonymous
Anonymous
Aphorism Foundation
the bedari collective
Children’s Investment Fund Foundation
David Leuschen
Mike and Sofia Segal
Kimberly and Scott Sheffield
Bernard and Anne Spitzer Charitable Trust
Ray Rothrock
Lithium plays a critical role in the global energy transition. It is the core ingredient of lithium-ion batteries that power electric vehicles (EVs) and are used in stationary energy storage systems. Due to its unique properties, lithium cannot be easily substituted when high performance is required—and that is unlikely to change with technological developments in the foreseeable future. For these reasons, forecasters expect lithium demand to rise precipitously through 2030 and then remain on an upward trajectory.
Meeting this fast-growing demand will require the development of many new lithium extraction projects. Developing any type of mine is a complex endeavor that often requires considerable time. But the lithium industry faces a set of structural, economic, and environmental challenges that compounds the difficulty of scaling production. Specifically, the lithium sector is small relative to many other mining industries, and fluctuating lithium prices are making it hard to attract investment. This in combination with long lead times can make it complicated to respond to short-term demand fluctuations.
This report, part of the Critical Materials program at the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University SIPA, explores the policy ecosystems supporting the development of a newer set of lithium production technologies based on direct lithium extraction (DLE), which involves the selective extraction of lithium ions from subsurface brines. If DLE technologies are scalable and mature, they could help meet lithium demand in the medium and especially the long term. In theory, DLE can be more efficient, effective, and sustainable than conventional lithium mining technologies, though more research is needed to demonstrate when and how.
The report focuses on the fiscal and regulatory mechanisms in place in the countries or regions that are developing DLE technologies, including the US, Canada, Chile, Bolivia, China, and Europe. These mechanisms have been effective in driving DLE development and deployment to date, but higher levels of support and novel policy maneuvers will be needed if governments want to continue to support efforts to scale DLE and potentially make it competitive with legacy forms of lithium production.
Other findings of the report are as follows:
The report concludes with a set of recommendations for policymakers in the countries or regions mentioned previously who wish to bolster support for DLE project development. These are followed by an appendix that maps existing DLE pilot and demonstration projects around the globe.
This paper proposes a de-risking framework of policy interventions to provide the risk allocation, revenue certainty and delivery confidence required by mainstream private finance.
This paper examines the trade dimensions of the policy instruments employed by the United States to secure critical minerals supply chains. Drawing on policy statements, executive orders, tariff schedules, and six bilateral critical minerals agreements announced in 2025, it assesses how US trade policy has been repurposed to advance supply-chain security objectives. The paper finds that recent US initiatives reflect bipartisan trends in reconfiguring trade policy that predate the Trump administration, even as they introduce new and consequential trade coordination mechanisms that operate outside the World Trade Organization and beyond conventional free trade agreements. Specifically, US critical minerals security strategy now relies on a differentiated set of sector-specific arrangements that combine familiar elements of US international economic engagement with more novel features that increasingly utilize trade policy instruments. What distinguishes these six minerals deals is their systematic coupling with parallel reciprocal trade negotiations, their incorporation of an explicitly ‘America First’ approach to reciprocity, the absence of a clear ideological hierarchy among partner countries, an emphasis on domestic processing and industrialization, and the growing use of exclusion mechanisms targeting third-party actors. The recurrence of these novel elements across diverse minerals deals suggests deliberate design rather than ad hoc experimentation that may have durable restructuring effects across global mineral supply chains. The paper concludes by outlining implications for US policy makers, for partner countries—particularly mineral-producing low- and middle-income economies—and for the architecture of the global trading system.
Full report
Reports by Milo McBride, Tom Moerenhout, Diego Rivera Rivota + 1 more • May 19, 2025