Five decisions that separate resilient EV supply chains from vulnerable ones
The next supply chain shock is only a matter of when. A power-electronics procurement lead argues that five decisions – on incoterms, semiconductor visibility, tariff monitoring, routing and contacts – will determine which EV supply chains absorb the impact and which buckle under the pressure.
Power-electronics lead Ganpati Goel shares five decisions that seperate resilient supply chains from vulnerable ones
Canva
CONTRIBUTOR CONTENT
Ganpati Goel is the senior global supply chain manager, power electronics, at Lucid Motors, and the author of peer-reviewed research on AI-driven EV procurement and dual-sourcing risk. He writes here in a personal capacity.
The Liberation Day tariff announcement of April 2025 added an estimated $3,600 per vehicle in import duty costs for the average US assembled vehicle manufacturer and roughly $6,000 to an imported vehicle, according to Cox Automotive.
By early 2026, US EV sales had fallen 22.6% year-to-date while total vehicle sales contracted 5.3%, according to Omdia data presented at Automotive Logistics' Finished Vehicle Logistics North America 2026 conference.
And this spring, Iranian missile strikes on Qatar's Ras Laffan LNG hub drove helium spot prices above $450 per thousand cubic feet – a 40% spike that is now rationing semiconductor production at TSMC and Samsung, tightening the very components that EV power electronics cannot function without.
I have managed cross-border EV component procurement across eight countries — the US, Mexico, the Philippines, Canada, India, Germany, Japan, and South Korea — for several manufacturers. The 2020–22 semiconductor crisis, the 2024 tariff escalations on Chinese-origin printed circuit board assemblies (PCBAs), and now the Iran-Hormuz semiconductor shock have each forced real-time decisions with documented financial consequences.
The AMS/ABB Automotive Manufacturing Outlook Survey 2025, drawing on 473 industry respondents, found that supply chain disruption has ranked among the top two challenges every year since 2022 and now tops cost concerns at 45% — ahead of raw materials at 42% and labour at 39%. The industry has stopped expecting disruption to be cyclical. The structural question is no longer whether the next shock arrives but whether your supply chain architecture will absorb it or collapse under it.
Full domestic sourcing of EV components is a 2035 aspiration. The procurement function's job in 2026 is to manage global supply chains without recreating the concentrated risk that brought them down in 2020-22.
Rare earth processing, advanced printed circuit board assembly, and precision powertrain machining are geographically concentrated not by trade policy choice but because of decades of capital investment and process know-how that no executive order can replicate overnight. The practical question is how to manage cross-border sourcing without recreating the single-point-of-failure architecture that cost the industry billions when it was tested.
Five decisions determine whether a cross-border EV supply chain is structurally resilient or operationally fragile. I have lived each of them under pressure.
Decision 1: Incoterm structure – who owns the risk leg
Most supplier contracts default to the seller's preferred Incoterm – typically EXW or FOB – because it is the path of least resistance at negotiation. This is a structural mistake in a tariff-volatile environment, and the Liberation Day tariff sequence exposed it at scale.
When duty liability was reclassified on Chinese-origin components in 2024 and 2025, procurement teams operating under DDP terms were insulated. Those under FOB or CFR absorbed retroactive duty exposure that had never been priced into their cost models. The corrective audit – renegotiating Incoterms across an active purchase order portfolio while production schedules hold firm – is expensive, slow, and relationship-straining.
Free Carrier (FCA) has emerged as the more defensible structure for cross-border EV transactions. It transfers risk at the named point of origin, is compatible with letter-of-credit financing, and allocates export clearance to the supplier, who is better positioned to manage it within their home jurisdiction. Teams should audit their Incoterm mix annually against the current tariff environment – not only at contract inception. The tariff environment of 2026 is not the one that existed when most of these contracts were signed.
In live procurement operations across my eight-country network, the FCA renegotiation following the February 2026 Supreme Court tariff rulings delivered immediate cost savings on impacted purchase orders and removed recurring refund-recovery overhead — a framework now applied across additional commodity lines.
Decision 2: Semiconductor exposure – the hidden tier three dependency
For EV procurement teams managing power electronics, the helium crisis is not an abstract geopolitical story. It is a direct threat to PCBA and power module delivery timelines. Qatar supplies approximately one-third of global helium, and the loss of that supply – used in semiconductor wafer fabrication at 3nm and 2nm nodes – is now causing rationing at major fabs. South Korea, which sourced 64.7% of its helium imports from Qatar in 2025, is operating on chipmaker stockpiles estimated at around six months as of early 2026, though these buffers remain fluid. Taiwan faces comparable exposure.
EV power electronics rely on advanced integrated circuits and semiconductors produced at precisely the fabs now under supply pressure. For procurement teams buying battery management unit PCBAs, variable frequency drive components, and onboard charger assemblies, the first visible symptom will be extended lead time notifications from tier one suppliers — often without explanation of the root cause.
The decision required here is proactive tier three visibility: understanding which semiconductor nodes your critical PCBAs depend on, and which of those nodes are concentrated in helium-dependent fabrication clusters. Teams that mapped this dependency after the 2020 semiconductor crisis had early warning in 2026. Teams that did not are discovering it now through allocation notices.
The AMS/ABB survey confirms the broader pattern: 28% of respondents identify supply chain visibility as a critical gap, and 64% expect increased adoption of supply chain management software over the next year. For EV power electronics specifically, that visibility must extend to tier three process inputs, not just tier one delivery schedules.
Decision 3: Tariff-monitoring cadence – from annual review to continuous signal
The traditional tariff management approach — an annual review by the customs compliance team – became obsolete during 2024. The 2025 tariff escalation sequence saw material Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) classification changes, Section 301 rate increases (doubling to 50% on Chinese semiconductors effective January 2025), and International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) tariffs layered on top, all within months of each other.
High-performing procurement teams have moved to a continuous tariff signal process: a designated commodity owner monitors HTSUS updates and Federal Register notices for their specific commodity codes on a rolling basis. This is not a full-time function. It is a structured 30-minute weekly check against a curated regulatory feed. But it converts tariff exposure from a surprise event into a managed input.
The operational downstream benefit is speed of response. A procurement team that identifies a tariff reclassification within days has negotiating leverage with suppliers and time to restructure logistics routing. A team that surfaces it six months after implementation is absorbing cost, not managing it. In a market where tariffs now represent the single largest cost pressure — cited by 45% of the AMS/ABB survey respondents ahead of raw materials and labour — this cadence is not optional.
Decision 4: Transit-buffer design – secondary routing as a standing asset
Single-lane logistics strategies produce clean invoices and predictable schedules until they do not. The Red Sea diversion of 2024, the Strait of Hormuz disruption of 2026, and port congestion events across Los Angeles-Long Beach during peak semiconductor recovery periods each exposed the same structural vulnerability: when the primary lane degrades, teams without a pre-negotiated secondary routing have no good options.
For critical EV components – BMU PCBAs, power conversion modules, contactor assemblies – the correct architecture is a standing secondary routing: a named alternate forwarder, an alternate port pair, and a trigger protocol that activates at a defined threshold, typically a 72-hour delay notification from the primary carrier. The secondary lane does not need to be active to have value. The value is the decision speed it enables when the primary lane fails.
Transit buffer inventory – safety stock sized to the lead-time delta between primary and secondary routing – is the complementary asset. Research into dual-sourcing risk mitigation for EV power electronics supply chains, drawing on documented procurement operations across semiconductor-constrained environments, supports a buffer calibration of three to six weeks of consumption for single-source critical components, with an estimated 50–60% reduction in supply disruption risk under adverse routing conditions.
The AMS/ABB survey found that 27% of respondents are actively shifting from single to dual sourcing, framing it explicitly as a challenge rather than a solution – reflecting the real procurement burden of managing additional supplier relationships while maintaining cost discipline. The burden is real. So is the alternative: production downtime, which at a luxury EV OEM can exceed $500,000 a day in my experience.
Decision 5: Contract localisation – standard terms are not jurisdiction-neutral
Standard contract templates are written from the buyer's legal jurisdiction. For cross-border EV procurement spanning civil and common law systems across Asia, North America, and Europe, this creates enforcement gaps that only surface during disputes — typically at the worst possible moment in the supplier relationship.
Three clauses warrant jurisdiction-specific review for every new international supplier relationship. Force majeure definitions vary substantially between common law jurisdictions (which typically require unforeseeability) and civil law jurisdictions (which may define qualifying events more broadly). IP ownership provisions for custom tooling and dies are particularly consequential in South Korea, India, and China, where local statute may conflict with boilerplate buyer-owns-tooling language. And termination-for-convenience notice periods may be unenforceable where a supplier's workforce is predominantly dedicated to the buyer's programme under local employment law.
The practical solution is a one-page jurisdiction addendum — reviewed by local counsel, not headquarters counsel — that adjusts these three clauses for the supplier's legal environment. Teams sourcing PCBAs from the Philippines, motors from South Korea, and structural components from India are operating under three different legal regimes simultaneously. The cost of jurisdiction-specific review is modest. The cost of discovering an unenforceable termination clause during a supply disruption is not.
The architecture question
The AMS/ABB survey's most important finding may be its medium-term optimism: 60% of respondents expect production growth in the three-year outlook. The industry believes the restructuring underway will yield more stable operating conditions. That optimism is conditional on the supply chain architecture built now.
The five decisions described here are not risk management theory. They are the operational basics that determined which procurement teams absorbed the shocks of the last five years and which were absorbed by them. Incoterm discipline caught the 2025 tariff reclassification before it became a balance sheet event. tier three semiconductor visibility will separate the teams with advance warning of the helium crisis from those receiving allocation notices without context. Continuous tariff monitoring converted a potential multi-million-dollar exposure into a managed renegotiation. Secondary routing protocols are the difference between a 72-hour production delay and a line stop. Contract localisation is the difference between a supplier termination and a legal dispute measured in months.
The next disruption is not hypothetical. The architecture to absorb it needs to be built before it arrives.
