Skip to main content
News Insights Hero
Industry Alerts

Plugged In: An EV Newsletter Vol. 2, No. 3

March 12, 2024
DOWNLOAD PDF
Share
    Jump to section

    Overview

    Editor’s Note

    In this edition of Plugged In, we invite you to dive into the intricate web of global supply chains and their profound implications for national security and economic resilience. This issue includes the conclusion of our 3-part interview with John McElroy and Co-Chair of DW’s EV Initiative, Bob Weiss.  John offers insights into the evolving landscape of the automotive industry, particularly in relation to China’s growing influence in the supply chain. As China tightens its grip on critical materials like graphite for batteries, John underscores the urgent need for the U.S. to mitigate dependencies and enhance domestic manufacturing capabilities, not just in autos but also across sectors vital to national security. Despite ongoing efforts such as the Chips Act and investments in domestic production facilities, John emphasizes the long road ahead in achieving supply chain independence and navigating the complex dynamics between the U.S. and China, which extend beyond economic competition to encompass broader geopolitical tensions and potential military challenges.

    In addition, in his article, Bob Weiss delves deeper into these issues raised by John, and provides additional insight into national security concerns directly tied to the U.S. reliance on foreign supply chains.  He expands on the scope of the issue as articulated by authors in the field and what the government is doing to address these potential threats to national security.  He also explores the imperative of diversification and strategic sourcing, as well as legislative efforts to bolster supply chain resilience in sectors pivotal to both national security and economic prosperity.

    As we navigate a rapidly evolving geopolitical landscape, the significance of supply chain security has never been more pronounced. Against this backdrop, this edition of Plugged In examines the complexities and challenges inherent in reducing dependency on foreign suppliers, despite significant investments announced by private companies in sectors such as semiconductors and electric vehicles. Join us as we dissect the multifaceted dimensions of supply chain security and its far-reaching implications for global stability and economic competitiveness.

    Heather L. Frayre | Editor and Member Partner

       Interview with John McElroy of Blue Sky Productions; Part 3

    Question 1

    Bob:     John, welcome to the conclusion of our 3-part interview. I think we have covered fairly well the estimated timeline and potential impact of China-based OEMs selling both electric and combustion-powered vehicles in the U.S. market. Let’s now focus on China’s role in the automotive-supply-chain relationship and its inherent risks. Do you see the current dominance of China as supplier of materials and processing functions as a material threat to the US automotive industry?

    John:    Absolutely, it has already started. China has already announced that it is going to limit the export of graphite that’s needed in batteries. This is their retaliation to the Biden administrations cut-off of Chinese access to high-tech chips. OK, we can’t get your chips; we’re going to start restricting your access to battery-quality graphite. A decade ago, China essentially cut off Japan’s access to rare earth minerals. It has shown its willing to use its dominance, and that’s the only way to describe it, in not only the mining of the raw materials needed for batteries and electric motors, but also the processing of those materials. And, that’s really one of the primary objectives of the Inflation Reduction Act – to begin to wean American manufacturing from dependence on China.

    Question 2

    Bob:     Is China’s control of the supply chain limited to the auto industry?

    John:    No. The need for those materials, and the need for batteries and magnets, goes well-beyond the auto industry. It’s an extremely important part of the military-industrial-complex. One of the things I like to point out is that when the U.S. military deploys our soldiers into a combat zone, each one of those soldiers has 18 pounds of batteries in their gear. Communication, night vision, that sort of thing. Where do you think most of those batteries come from? Most of them come from China and if they don’t come from China, most of the materials that were used in making them were processed in China. So, this has very serious national security implications that go beyond just electric cars. These materials, batteries and magnets, are absolutely used across the military. Further, even if you just look at the auto industry itself, you know it’s an industry that’s considered strategically important to the United States and there’s a feeling it should not be dependent on China to thrive and survive.

    Question 3

    Bob:     What action has been taken to mitigate this risk?

    John:    The Chips Act was instituted to begin to address this problem. The U.S. used to produce something like 30% of the chips in the world. Now, it’s under 10%. We put all our eggs in Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. (“TMSC”), which is Taiwan’s large, chip-making company. Now there’s a recognition like holy smokes, what if China goes into Taiwan. It would cripple the American economy if they cut off our access to those chips. So, yeah, it’s going to take a long time to get this resolved.  In fact, it won’t be 100% resolved because even if we go back to where we were before, 30% – we are still importing 70% of those chips. But, having said that, Intel is building a massive fabrication plant in Ohio. TMSC is building a massive fabrication plant in Arizona. There are fabrication plants going up in New York and in Michigan, and so you look at the problem and it’s a mountain; it’s daunting. But, if you just sit on your hands and do nothing, you’re never going to get anywhere. You may as well start. And, the same thing goes into the raw materials for batteries. I attended the SAE’s North American Propulsion Conference where they bring in all the top powertrain people in the world. I can’t tell you who said this because they follow Chatham House Rules. I can talk about anything that was said at the conference, but I cannot say who said it, or what company, but I can quote you the numbers right now, and this comes from an extremely large battery company out of Korea. In the next five years, they say 63% of all the cathode material needed in batteries will be sourced in the U.S. or from our allies – 42% of the anode material; 100% of the electrode material, and 72% of the key metals. So, that’s still going to leave us short. It’s still going to leave us dependent on China. But in five years, we are going to see significant progress in being able to source those materials within North America, or from allies like Australia. 

    Question 4

    Bob:     Given the timeline for the U.S. to develop a supply chain independent of China, how does this get resolved?

    John:    Look, China and the U.S. are going to be formidable competitors. We just are. The world pretty much welcomed China into the global-economic community until Xi Jinping came to power and set China on this course of domination. Not just competition, but domination in key industries. It goes beyond EVs, you know. It includes artificial intelligence; it includes space; it includes super-computing. And then, you throw in these other things like trying to wall off the South China Sea. You know, declaring it had rights to what other countries, notably the Philippines, declare their territorial waters. And look, one of our admirals, who retired recently said that China is going to challenge us militarily by 2025. So, if that does happen, all bets are off. Hopefully, we and they, find some path of accommodation because it’s in our mutual economic interest to grow together and we should sell them what we do best and they should sell us what they do best. I mean, in an ideal economy that’s how things should go. Right now, it’s hard to see a happy ending to this story.

    Bob:     Thanks so much for your time and sharing your insights with our readers. It has been enjoyable and most enlightening. I very much hope we will have the chance to revisit this topic and discuss other facets of the industry transformation in the near future.

    Please note the views represented in this interview belong to the interviewee and do not necessarily reflect the views of the interviewer or Dickinson Wright.