Are you concerned about China's ownership in container ports across the
world? Might that be a hindrance, a problem for
U.S. commercial and national security
interests abroad? Well, as we seek to deal risk and
diversify our supply chains and our economic relationships, we do want to
make sure that these capabilities are not concentrated with with any one
country, certainly with a country that may demonstrated a willingness to use
these in ways that are not connected to what is the best going forward, either
commercially or in terms of the rules based international order.
We want to make sure that at least when we can agree on matters from climate
change to public health, that we're operating on a basis that that can be
understood to be for the benefit of all. Those are the kinds of things we're
focused on here at the G-7. You talk about risking are there any
other sectors that meet? Do you risking some point to perhaps
even the drug sector in China? I mean, the world is reliant on basic
drugs when it comes to China. Well, I want to make sure not to wander
too far outside of my own portfolio. I know that these are subjects of active
conversation, both bilaterally and multilaterally.
What I can say with regard to supply chains is that we have seen how if there
is not enough diversification, you see extraordinary levels of geopolitical
risk or even just logistical risk. You know, in the US, because of the
extreme variation between the closures and the Rio openings in Asia and in
China specifically, there's a great deal of unevenness in terms of the arrival of
goods that our ports, our ports we're not ready to take in all at once.
I think that's one example of the kind of wake up calls that the US and that
the global community in general have been experiencing, especially in the
last two to three years since we're talking about supply chains, of course,
semiconductors front and center. We've had the chip for us, Japan, Korea,
Taiwan, investing heavily in their own respective semiconductor sectors.
Could that lead to overcapacity? What's your assessment?
How are you looking at it? Well, you know, right now, overcapacity
seems to be the least of our problems when it comes to the race for
semiconductors. And we saw how problematic it was when
we came up short. Of course, this is a process where the
very intentional, direct and ambitious use of public policy has to match the
unique ability of markets to allocate resources and to help make sure that the
capacity is tracking the future of demand.
What we know is that semiconductors are going to be even more important in the
future. We think about the automotive sector,
for example, and the fact that a car is increasingly as much a computer as it is
a vehicle. And the same could be said of so many
other sectors. So rather than allow ourselves to again
be in a situation where we're coming up short, we're making sure that both in
terms of our relationships with friends and trading partners and in terms of our
domestic capacity, which, by the way, has also benefited from the foreign
direct, direct investment, that that's really helping to create jobs on U.S.
soil while strengthening our partnerships and relationships across
the Pacific. That is something that makes sense for
the future and can help us to to cushion some of the geopolitical risk knowing
looking to resume its deliveries of the max jets to China.
Is there a sense when that might be happened?
How are you trying to push this along with the Chinese government?
Well, our focus from from the FAA standpoint and the U.S.
Department of Transportation is simply on the certification and safety.
The rest is is a market matter, one that obviously there's a lot of interest from
a trade perspective. But we're very cautious in our
administration and certainly in my department to separate trade questions
from safety questions. And the safety questions are our top
focus. You talked about these the big boys, the
likes of GM Ford that come forward to say that, you know what, they're ready
to adopt Tesla's super charges. How could you look at that?
Well, that perhaps, you know, make it even more difficult for your department
to have oversight of Tesla's auto pilot. We view the the relationship that's been
established in terms of chargers as a positive development.
Our biggest concern is simply to make sure that a good, strong charging
network is available. In other words, as a US government,
we're not out to pick winners and losers and say that this company or this
company's standard is better than the others.
We did establish a baseline in terms of access to a certain connector to make
sure that everybody knew what to expect, but that was designed to be a floor and
not a ceiling. Likewise, with Chargers more generally
we're establishing certain rules, especially for any charger that benefits
from US government subsidies. Making sure that the pricing is
transparent. Making sure there's a high standard of
reliability, making sure they're interoperable so that there's no walled
garden where you are confined. To a membership with one company in
order to access charges, and what's remarkable about the relationship that's
been established, for example, with Ford and Tesla is it means that that many
more drivers will have access to those charges.
And look. No one has more experience in deploying
chargers across the United States than Tesla.
Now, it's also important to remember that while connectors are a key part, of
course, in the charging of an electric vehicle, they are a part that is
adaptable. There can be adapters.
This is why I think the the format war analogy to the days of VHS and Betamax,
for example, doesn't fully fit here. The biggest challenges we've seen with
installing and maintaining chargers have to do with utilities, the site
readiness. When you add up all of the challenges in
terms of getting a good charger up and running the connector is not your
biggest problem. Is it fair then to say that you are
comfortable with. Tesla Supercharger is being the de facto
standard? Well, in terms of the connector, I think
again, we want to make sure that if you have a CBS car, you can get access to
charging. But if things evolve in the direction of
that next standard the Tesla has developed, you know, the most important
thing is that we ultimately get a kind of convergence.
And again, this is an area where we're not focused so much on putting the thumb
on the scale for this company or that company.
We are putting a thumb on the scale for making sure that these developed quickly
enough to help us meet our climate goals in a way that creates good paying
American jobs. And on an equitable, equitable basis,
because often some of the people who would most stand to benefit from the
cost savings of ownership might not have access to that.
If, for example, they live in a multifamily dwelling where it's not yet
profitable for the private sector alone to be installing chargers, that's where
we come in and help.