mobile-menu-icon
Ford Authority

Ford EV Supplier Gets $700 Million Backing From DOE Program

The ongoing Ford EV pivot is a massive undertaking that involves the automaker pairing up with a number of battery manufacturers, but also a fair number of mining companies and operations related to raw material extraction, as the entire industry races to secure enough material to produce electric vehicles at scale. As Ford Authority previously detailed, some of those partners and suppliers have been awarded funding from the federal government. Now, another supplier has secured funding from the Department of Energy for mining operations in Nevada, per a new report from Bloomberg.

According to the report, the agency issued a conditional commitment of up to $700 million for the Rhyolite Ridge Lithium-Boron Project operated by Ioneer. The funding comes courtesy of the Advanced Technology Manufacturing Loan Program and the project itself may enable the company to provide enough material for 370,000 electric vehicles. Currently, Ford and Toyota are the company’s automotive customers. The Blue Oval’s interest in Ioneer first surfaced as part of the Ford EV battery capacity master plan, which officially became public in mid-2022. A binding off-take agreement obligates the company to provide lithium carbonate from the project to support Ford EV production beyond 2025. That timetable means the lithium is part of Ford’s goal to achieve a two million production run rate of EVs by the end of 2026.

In addition to securing raw materials from suppliers, Ford is expanding partnerships with CATL, LG, and SK On for EV battery production in China, Europe, and North America. As Ford Authority previously reported, the Inflation Reduction Act may result in some of the plants being constructed in the United States, as the legislation provides tax credits for companies looking to establish EV production facilities within the country. Ford CEO Jim Farley has said that the legislation is extremely beneficial for the company and its partners.

We’ll have more on Ford’s ongoing EV pivot soon, so subscribe to Ford Authority for comprehensive Ford news coverage.

Ed owns a 1986 Ford Taurus LX, and he routinely daydreams about buying another one, a fantasy that may someday become a reality.

Subscribe to Ford Authority

For around-the-clock Ford news coverage

We'll send you one email per day with the latest Ford updates. It's totally free.

Comments

  1. Michael J Genzale

    Great that mining of essential materials are on US soil. We can’t be held hostage by some foreign power.

    Reply
    1. RWFA

      This was a key part of the IRA law.

      The tax incentives in the IRA bring mining, battery and final assembly home to US and NAFTA.

      Reply
  2. Bob

    How much will sales be damaged by Teslas price drop? I think it’s going to hurt quite a bit unless they can let their price back to earth. Wait until the cyber truck this year

    Reply
    1. RWFA

      I do agree that the competition will put everybody on their toes.

      You think that ugly thing will sell in volume? I suppose a low price and lack of customer taste will help move a few units.

      Reply
  3. Mike

    Meanwhile the company getting the $700 mil will be making a fortune on the batteries also. I hope they have to pay it back or we taxpayers get something out of this. Government picking winners and losers is BS. They should’ve been able to get private funding for this destruction of the environment without having to hammer taxpayers again for something most don’t want or can’t use. I’m sure a lot of that $700 mil will end up in politicians pockets also.

    Reply
    1. RWFA

      Meanwhile, K-street Mike pops in with some of the newer scripted FUD and outright disinformation comments mixed with some old:

      – environmental destruction (this is a newer complaint), here he doesn’t deploy sub-arguments about mining or recycling, but he does fully ignore Big Oil’s Century long destruction of the air, land, and sea;

      – he gripes about government picking winners and losers, but his argument is designed to prey upon the general ignorance of folks that this is what policy generally does. He also needs an audience full of ignorance, and empty if critical thinking, because he conflates entities with technologies, whereas the IRA BEV provisions create policy conditions which support private investment in BEV tech. He leaves it to the readers to not realize the winners are new technologies (produced mostly in the USA) vs old tech mostly imported;

      – similarly, he depends on folks not thinking about all the ways government and taxpayers have funded Big Oil (despite its history of healthy and increasing profits). A big part of government cost is just to keep the means necessary to ensure that Big Oil’s overseas sources of crude aren’t imperiled;

      – he makes an omelette of public private funding. Again glossing over the history of giveaways to Big Oil, and hoping deny a bit of the same standard for BEV raw materials;

      – he makes it look like BEV producers will make a fortune but ignores the mountains of fortune Big Oil has heaped up even as it poisoned, and poisons, the air, water, land, lungs and calls into question the future of human existence as we have known it;

      – he tries to attack the politicians as corrupt for support BEV tech, but his deployment of that bomb requires more casual avoidance of Mathe kinds of corruption all things Big Oil have wreaked on nature, humanity and societies; and

      – the chef’s kiss of his densely thematic comment is how he separates and reverses traditional conservative tent pole themes, now what has traditionally been good is bad (since it’s not benefiting or in the service of Big Oil): profit; tech policy, tax policy, environmental policy, corrupt politicians, and environmental destruction, by making it look like these issues will be worse for BEV tech than they have demonstrably been during the era of Big Carbon.

      Ps Most people have a favorable view of BEV tech as well but why let reality stand in the way of falsehoods and FUD.

      Reply
  4. RWFA

    X.

    Reply

Leave a comment

Cancel