Copper’s Critical Status: DOE Recognizes It, USGS Does Not

Copper moved closer to official “critical” status in U.S. policy, but not all the way there. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) now lists copper as a critical material for clean energy technologies, yet the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) still excludes it from its formal Critical Minerals List. This split decision leaves copper in a frustrating “one for two” position for many in the industry.

DOE Critical Materials Assessment Adds Copper

The DOE’s 2023 Critical Materials Assessment evaluated materials vital to global clean energy supply chains and formally added copper to its list of critical materials. This recognition reflects copper’s essential role in:

• Power cables and transmission networks

• Electric vehicles and charging infrastructure

• Renewable energy systems and grid modernization

The Copper Development Association (CDA) had lobbied strongly for this move and welcomed DOE’s decision. Copper now appears alongside materials such as aluminum, dysprosium, electrical steels, fluorine, gallium, lithium, nickel, natural graphite, silicon, and silicon carbide on the DOE list.

USGS Still Keeps Copper Off the Critical Minerals List

However, the more consequential designation for mining and permitting—USGS’s Critical Minerals List—still does not include copper. That omission matters because placement on the USGS list can help prioritize federal support, permitting timelines, and investment focus for mining and processing projects.

Supporters of copper’s inclusion argue that USGS’s own methodology now shows copper meeting the Supply Risk benchmark score of 0.40, which should qualify it for automatic listing. They contend that growing demand, concentrated global supply, and rising import dependence all increase copper’s strategic risk.

USGS Position: Copper Supply Risk Is Mitigated

USGS Director David Applegate has pushed back on those arguments. He acknowledges that copper is an essential mineral but maintains that current supply risks do not justify an out‑of‑cycle change to the list. In his view, several factors help mitigate U.S. vulnerability:

• Significant domestic copper production capacity

• Strong trade relationships with reliable supplier countries

• Robust secondary (recycled) copper capacity

Because of these factors, USGS does not see enough evidence right now to elevate copper to critical mineral status between scheduled list updates.

CDA Response: Data Shows Copper Now Qualifies

CDA President and CEO Andrew Kireta, Jr. sharply disagrees with USGS’s conclusion. He notes that the agency relied on out‑of‑date data for its 2022 list, while market conditions and import risks have shifted significantly since then. To address that gap, CDA commissioned an independent analyst to recalculate copper’s supply risk using more recent information.

According to CDA, the updated analysis shows:

• A 2022 Copper Supply Risk score of 0.423

• A four‑year weighted average of 0.407

Both figures exceed the USGS 0.40 benchmark for automatic inclusion, so CDA argues that copper should qualify on both current and multi‑year bases.

What’s Next for Copper’s Critical Status?

For now, copper has “won” recognition from the DOE but still lacks the USGS critical minerals designation that many see as more impactful for permitting and project support. USGS says it will continue to monitor copper supply and demand trends. However, a formal update to the Critical Minerals List is not scheduled until 2025, so any change is unlikely in the short term.

In the meantime, copper remains central to clean energy and grid expansion, even if its official status in Washington only reflects part of that reality.

Author: WJI staff and wire services