Supply‑Chain Resilience in Lithium‑Iron‑Phosphate (LFP) Batteries: Evidence from U.S. Capacity Expansion 2022–2025

ABSTRACT

The global transition to electric vehicles and grid-scale energy storage has amplified the strategic importance of Lithium-Iron-Phosphate (LFP) battery technology. This paper examines the resilience of the U.S. LFP battery supply chain by analyzing domestic capacity expansion efforts between 2022 and 2025. The primary objective is to assess the extent to which recent policy interventions, chiefly the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), have catalyzed a secure domestic value chain amid significant geopolitical risks, particularly the profound U.S. dependence on China. This study synthesizes data from government reports, industry analyses, and academic literature to evaluate progress across the entire supply chain, from mineral processing to cell manufacturing. Findings indicate that while over $150 billion in investments have been announced for the advanced battery sector, leading to a substantial pipeline of LFP cell production facilities, significant vulnerabilities persist. The U.S. faces critical challenges related to technology and intellectual property transfer, a constrained skilled workforce, and deep-seated dependencies on foreign entities for upstream materials like cathode active materials and processed graphite. The analysis concludes that while downstream manufacturing capacity is growing, achieving true supply-chain resilience requires a more comprehensive strategy to secure midstream and upstream segments of the LFP value chain.

Introduction

The landscape of energy storage is undergoing a significant transformation, with Lithium-Iron-Phosphate (LFP) batteries emerging as a dominant chemistry. Projections indicate that LFP cathode active material (CAM) will capture 52% of the market by 2035, driven by escalating demand for electric vehicles (EVs) and battery energy storage systems.¹ This surge in demand has exposed a critical vulnerability for the United States: an overwhelming dependence on foreign supply chains. Currently, China controls approximately 95% of global LFP production, creating substantial geopolitical and economic risks for U.S. energy security and economic competitiveness.¹

Ironically, LFP technology was an American innovation, developed at the University of Texas at Austin and first commercialized by the U.S. company A123 Systems. However, following A123’s bankruptcy in 2012, its intellectual property was acquired by a Chinese firm, effectively transferring the technological advantage overseas.² In response to this strategic dependency, the U.S. government has enacted ambitious industrial policy, most notably the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022, to re-shore battery manufacturing and build a resilient domestic supply chain.³

This paper investigates the progress and challenges of U.S. LFP capacity expansion in the pivotal 2022–2025 period following the IRA’s passage. It moves beyond a narrow focus on cell assembly to assess the entire value chain, including upstream mineral processing and midstream component production. The objectives are to: (1) document the scale and nature of announced U.S. LFP capacity investments; (2) analyze the impact of the IRA and its associated regulations, such as the Foreign Entity of Concern (FEOC) provisions; and (3) evaluate the persistent vulnerabilities that challenge the goal of a truly resilient domestic LFP supply chain.

Literature review

The challenge of building a resilient LFP supply chain is rooted in its history and concentrated geography. The technology’s U.S. origins followed by its commercial maturation in China created a deep-seated dependency.² Today, China dominates not only LFP cathode production (nearly 90%) but also key upstream inputs, including 65% of lithium refining and 95% of battery-grade graphite processing.^1,2 This concentration makes the LFP supply chain significantly more vulnerable to disruption from China than nickel-manganese-cobalt (NMC) alternatives; an estimated 92% of LFP cathode material involves inputs extracted, processed, or manufactured in China.¹⁸

Supply chain resilience is a multidimensional concept encompassing geopolitical, logistical, economic, and operational risks. The acute dependence on a single geopolitical rival represents the most significant threat to the U.S. battery sector. In response, the U.S. has deployed the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) as its primary policy tool. The IRA’s 45X Advanced Manufacturing Production Tax Credit is central to this strategy, offering substantial incentives: $35 per kilowatt-hour (kWh) for domestically produced battery cells, $10/kWh for modules, and a 10% production cost credit for domestic electrode active materials.³ These credits are designed to make U.S. manufacturing cost-competitive with established Asian markets.

Complementing these incentives are restrictive measures, particularly the Foreign Entity of Concern (FEOC) rules, which disqualify vehicles from consumer tax credits if their battery components or critical minerals are sourced from entities controlled by countries like China.³ The implementation of these rules is a subject of intense debate, with partnerships like the Ford-CATL technology licensing agreement serving as a key test case for balancing the need for foreign expertise against national security goals.³ Some analysts argue that to truly accelerate onshoring, the FEOC restrictions should be expanded beyond consumer credits to encompass commercial vehicle credits and the 45X manufacturing incentives themselves, thereby closing potential loopholes.⁴ This body of literature establishes the strategic imperative and policy framework for onshoring, but a gap remains in assessing the tangible outcomes and persistent vulnerabilities during the initial implementation phase.

Methodology

This study utilizes a qualitative synthesis approach to analyze the state of the U.S. LFP battery supply chain between 2022 and 2025. The research methodology involves a comprehensive review and integration of findings from a curated selection of recent, high-impact sources. These sources include official U.S. government publications, such as reports from the Department of Energy; in-depth industry analyses from specialized firms like Bloomberg New Energy Finance and Benchmark Mineral Intelligence; peer-reviewed academic articles; and policy papers from non-partisan think tanks and research centers, including the Center on Global Energy Policy and the Council on Strategic Risks.

The analytical scope is intentionally broad, encompassing the entire battery value chain as defined by contemporary resilience strategy. This includes upstream activities (mining and processing of critical minerals such as lithium, iron, phosphate, and graphite), midstream production (manufacturing of cathode and anode active materials), and downstream manufacturing (assembly of battery cells and packs). The temporal focus on the 2022–2025 period is critical, as it captures the immediate market and investment response to the passage of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which together form the cornerstone of current U.S. industrial policy for energy supply chains. By synthesizing evidence across these domains, this paper provides a holistic assessment of both the progress in domestic capacity expansion and the structural challenges that remain.

Findings and analysis

Investment and capacity expansion

Since 2021, federal policies have spurred more than $150 billion in announced investments across the U.S. advanced batteries supply chain, with a project pipeline aiming for over 1,100 GWh per year of cell manufacturing capacity.⁵ A significant portion of this is dedicated to LFP chemistry. By 2030, North America’s announced LFP cell production capacity is projected to reach approximately 220 GWh annually, rivaling that of nickel-based chemistries.⁹

Key LFP projects underscore this trend. LG Energy Solution began producing LFP batteries for energy storage systems at its Holland, Michigan, facility in May 2025, representing a $1.4 billion investment with a 16.5 GWh annual capacity.^6,10 In Mississippi, Amplify Cell Technologies—a joint venture including Daimler, PACCAR, and technology partner EVE Energy—is constructing a 21 GWh LFP cell factory slated to begin production in 2027.⁷ Similarly, Ultium Cells, a joint venture between General Motors and LG Energy Solution, plans to convert its Spring Hill, Tennessee, plant to produce LFP cells starting in late 2027.⁸

Economic viability and policy impact

The economic feasibility of these projects hinges on the IRA. In 2022, U.S. LFP cell production costs were estimated at $125/kWh. The IRA’s 45X tax credits, providing a combined $45/kWh for cells and modules, fundamentally alter this equation, making domestic production competitive.³ However, this advantage is fragile. A 2025 forecast suggests that without a domestic supply of LFP cathode active material (CAM), U.S.-made LFP cells could be 56% more expensive than their Chinese counterparts due to tariffs on imported CAM and ineligibility for the 10% active material production credit.¹¹ Furthermore, the IRA’s FEOC rules, which begin disqualifying EVs from tax credits in 2025 if critical minerals are sourced from a FEOC, are expected to render a significant portion of new EVs non-compliant, highlighting the difficulty in purging Chinese materials from the supply chain.¹⁷

Upstream and midstream challenges

Despite progress in cell assembly, the U.S. faces a steep learning curve and deep dependencies further up the value chain. Domestic manufacturers have less experience with LFP chemistry, often necessitating joint ventures with established Chinese firms to access intellectual property, which introduces geopolitical and technology security risks.^5,13 This reliance is precarious, as the Chinese government has threatened to ban the export of LFP cathode equipment, potentially stalling U.S. adoption.¹³

The most critical bottleneck is in midstream component manufacturing. By 2030, the U.S. is projected to face a major shortfall in battery active materials, with domestic cathode production meeting only 62% of demand and anode production meeting just 71%.¹² This gap ensures continued reliance on imports. The problem extends to precursor materials, with a short supply of battery-grade phosphoric acid and manganese sulphate in North America hindering LFP and LMFP cathode localization.¹³ At the raw material level, the U.S. currently mines no graphite or manganese, despite possessing sufficient resources.¹⁴ Consequently, U.S. graphite demand is expected to exceed domestic and allied supply in the near term.¹⁹

Emerging North American solutions

In response to these challenges, nascent efforts to build a fully regional supply chain are underway. First Phosphate has successfully produced LFP battery cells using a completely North American supply chain, sourcing minerals from Quebec and Nevada.¹⁵ Canada is emerging as a vital partner, possessing significant graphite and nickel resources and being designated a “domestic source” under the U.S. Defense Production Act, making Canadian firms eligible for U.S. federal funding.^13,16 Progress is also being made in lithium refining, with projections showing the U.S. and its Free Trade Agreement (FTA) partners could develop enough capacity to meet regional demand by 2032.¹⁷

Discussion

The evidence from 2022-2025 presents a dual narrative for the U.S. LFP battery supply chain. On one hand, the IRA has been remarkably successful in catalyzing investment in downstream cell and pack manufacturing, reversing decades of offshoring. On the other hand, this progress has exposed deeper, more complex vulnerabilities in the midstream and upstream segments of the value chain. The findings suggest that the U.S. is not eliminating its dependency but rather shifting it—from finished batteries to the critical materials and intellectual property required to make them.

This situation has significant implications for both theory and practice. Theoretically, it demonstrates the limitations of industrial policy that is not holistically applied across an entire value chain. Incentivizing final assembly without concurrently securing the supply of intermediate components and raw materials creates a “hollowed-out” industrial base that remains fragile. Practically, it signals that for the U.S. to achieve genuine supply chain resilience, policy and investment must pivot to address the midstream gap. This includes fostering domestic innovation in LFP cathode production to reduce reliance on foreign IP and aggressively developing domestic or “friend-shored” sources of critical minerals like graphite and manganese, as well as precursors like phosphoric acid.

Several limitations and counter-findings temper the optimistic outlook from announced projects. First, a constrained workforce, with shortages of skilled construction trades and manufacturing labor, could delay project timelines and increase costs.⁵ Second, while battery recycling can contribute to local content requirements under the IRA, the infrastructure and volume of end-of-life batteries are insufficient to make a meaningful impact in the near term.³ Finally, the ability of the U.S. government to effectively monitor and enforce policies like the FEOC rules is hindered by outdated tariff classification systems that lack the specificity to track key battery components, a data gap that can be exploited by firms seeking to obscure their supply chains.⁴

Conclusion

In the period between 2022 and 2025, the United States has initiated an ambitious and costly effort to build a resilient domestic Lithium-Iron-Phosphate battery supply chain. Spurred by the Inflation Reduction Act, significant capital has been committed to developing a robust downstream manufacturing footprint for LFP cells and packs. This represents a crucial first step toward mitigating the geopolitical risks associated with over-reliance on China.

However, this analysis demonstrates that achieving true supply chain resilience is a far more complex endeavor. The rapid expansion of cell capacity masks persistent and critical vulnerabilities in the midstream and upstream sectors. The U.S. remains dependent on foreign sources for the technological know-how, processed active materials, and critical minerals essential for LFP production. Without a concerted effort to close these gaps, the burgeoning U.S. LFP industry will remain susceptible to foreign supply disruptions and geopolitical pressure.

Future research should focus on tracking the operationalization of announced projects against their stated timelines and capacities to verify progress. Further investigation is needed into the efficacy of “friend-shoring” strategies with partners like Canada in filling critical mineral and material deficits. Finally, a granular analysis of the workforce development pipeline is essential to ensure that the human capital required to build and operate these advanced manufacturing facilities is available, a factor that will ultimately determine the long-term success of this national industrial project.

RELEVANT TAGS:

REFERENCES AND NOTES

1. Nano One Materials Corp. (2025). Nano One Positioned For Rising Lfp Demand, Aligned With Energy Strategies Supporting Critical Mineral Localization Efforts Worldwide. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. https://www.jsonline.com/press-release/story/2819/nano-one-positioned-for-rising-lfp-demand-aligned-with-energy-strategies-supporting-critical-mineral-localization-efforts-worldwide/
2. Dezenski, E. K., & Birenbaum, J. (2025). Unplugging Beijing. Foundation for Defense of Democracies. https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2025/07/21/unplugging-beijing/
3. Mehdi, A., & Moerenhout, T. (2023). The IRA and the US Battery Supply Chain: One Year On. Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University SIPA. https://www.energypolicy.columbia.edu/publications/the-ira-and-the-us-battery-supply-chain-one-year-on/
4. Taulli, B., & Busby, J. (2025). The Devil is in the Details: Minerals, Batteries, and US Dependence on Chinese Imports. The Council on Strategic Risks. https://councilonstrategicrisks.org/2025/05/30/the-devil-is-in-the-details-minerals-batteries-and-us-dependence-on-chinese-imports/
5. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY. (2024). 2021–2024 FOUR-YEAR REVIEW OF SUPPLY CHAINS FOR THE ADVANCED BATTERIES SECTOR. https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2024-12/20212024-Four%20Year%20Review%20of%20Supply%20Chains%20for%20the%20Advanced%20Batteries%20Sector.pdf
6. Bonner, A. (2025). LG Energy Solution, First Phosphate push forward LFP supply chain in North America. Energy-Storage.news. https://www.energy-storage.news/lg-energy-solution-first-phosphate-push-forward-lfp-supply-chain-in-north-america/
7. Amplify Cell Technologies. (2024). Amplify Cell Technologies Begins Construction of Mississippi Battery Cell Factory. PACCAR. https://www.paccar.com/news/current-news/2024/amplify-cell-technologies-begins-construction-of-mississippi-battery-cell-factory/
8. Lowery, L. (2025, July 16). GM, LG Energy joint venture making plans to ramp up production of low‑cost EV batteries. Repairer Driven News. Retrieved from https://www.repairerdrivennews.com/2025/07/16/gm-lg-energy-joint-venture-making-plans-to-ramp-up-production-of-low-cost-ev-batteries/
9. Gohlke, D., Krishnamoorthy Iyer, R., Kelly, J., Pene Njine Monthe, A., Wu, X., Barlock, T. A., & Mansour, C. (2024). Quantification of Commercially Planned Battery Component Supply in North America through 2035. Argonne National Laboratory. https://publications.anl.gov/anlpubs/2024/03/187735.pdf
10. Colthorpe, A. (2025). LG ES to invest US$1.4 billion in US stationary storage cell manufacturing. Energy-Storage.news. https://www.energy-storage.news/lg-es-to-invest-us1-4-billion-in-us-stationary-storage-cell-manufacturing/
11. Benchmark source. (2025). Benchmark debuts cell price forecast as US’ LFP pipeline surges. Benchmark Mineral Intelligence. https://source.benchmarkminerals.com/article/benchmark-debuts-cell-price-forecast-as-us-lfp-pipeline-surges
12. Reinsch, W. A., Broadbent, M., Denamiel, T., & Shammas, E. (2024). Friendshoring the Lithium-Ion Battery Supply Chain: Battery Cell Manufacturing. Center for Strategic and International Studies. https://www.csis.org/analysis/friendshoring-lithium-ion-battery-supply-chain-battery-cell-manufacturing
13. Oxford Institute for Energy Studies. (2025, April). EVs and battery supply chains: Issues and impacts (Oxford Energy Forum, Issue 144). Oxford Institute for Energy Studies. https://www.oxfordenergy.org/wpcms/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/OEF-144.pdf
14. Holley, E. A., Fahle, L., Smith, N. M., Deberdt, R., Calderon, J., Gibbs, G., & Bazilian, M. (2025). Graphite and manganese mining in the U.S.: Proposed projects and federal battery mineral policies. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301420725002314
15. Zadeh, J. (2025). First Phosphate Produces LFP Battery Cells Using North American Critical Minerals. Discovery Alert. https://discoveryalert.com.au/news/north-american-critical-minerals-battery-production-2025/
16. Lushetsky, J., Simpson, M. T., Dickerson, P. H., & Gambhir, R. (2023). US-Canada Critical Mineral, EV Battery, and Semiconductor Cross-Border Supply Chain Issues. Mintz. https://www.mintz.com/insights-center/viewpoints/2151/2023-11-03-us-canada-critical-mineral-ev-battery-and-semiconductor
17. Shen, C., Slowik, P., & Beach, A. (2024). INVESTIGATING THE U.S. BATTERY SUPPLY CHAIN AND ITS IMPACT ON ELECTRIC VEHICLE COSTS THROUGH 2032. The International Council on Clean Transportation. https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/ID-85-%E2%80%93-EV-supply-chain-Report-Letter-70112-v3.pdf
18. Cheng, A. L., Fuchs, E. R. H., Karplus, V. J., & Michalek, J. J. (n.d.). Electric vehicle battery chemistry affects supply chain disruption vulnerabilities. https://downloads.regulations.gov/EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0829-0706/attachment_2.pdf
19. Barlock, T. A., Mansour, C., Riddle, M., Crisostomo, N., Keyles, G., Gohlke, D., Zhou, Y., Polzin, B., & Weigl, D. (2024). Securing Critical Materials for the U.S. Electric Vehicle Industry. Argonne National Laboratory. https://publications.anl.gov/anlpubs/2024/03/187907.pdf