Shared risks, divided attention3 Mineral supply for EVs, data centres and ET&D faces two kinds of exposure: physical bottlenecks and system frictions. Concentrated processing, long build times and site constraints limit how fast supply can grow, while weak cross-tier visibility, shifting demand and fragmented standards slow investment and qualification. Because mining, refining and equipment manufacturing operate on different timelines and face distinct vulnerabilities, risk management remains fragmented, turning small shocks into downstream delays and higher costs. Additionally, vertical integration rarely extends beyond one to three tiers, leaving miners, refiners, component makers and end-product owners weakly connected at the system level. These findings build on the Forum’s Securing Minerals for the Energy Transition work,26 which has identified supply-demand gaps and the societal, environmental and governance risks that continue to shape resilience today. Despite differing perspectives shared during consultations, four systemic themes have emerged: –Fragmented dialogue and visibility gaps: Distance between upstream and downstream actors creates information gaps and an uneven understanding of one another’s risks; dialogue is episodic and bilateral rather than system-wide. –Demand uncertainty: Unclear and constantly changing demand projections across the value chain, driven partly by policy changes and rapidly evolving technologies, hinder investments and planning. –Differing risk agendas: Each tier in the value chain optimizes for its own risks and targets, creating misaligned incentives across the value chain. –Low salience and actionability gap: Mineral risks often seem marginal and sit below nearer- term issues (energy costs, emissions, tier-1 performance); even when flagged, downstream players lack clear, practical levers to act, leaving issues unresolved. EV OEMs are further along in managing upstream risk than data centres and many ET&D players. The semiconductor shortage halted vehicle production and exposed the limits of single-tier visibility. In response, leading EV manufacturers elevated mineral risk to the executive agenda to avoid repetition. By contrast, mineral governance is less mature in data centres and grids, though some utilities already maintain strong supplier visibility.Minerals-intensive value chains face physical bottlenecks and systemic gaps that can quickly delay equipment deliveries and increase project costs for downstream players. Early warning signs in supply 3.1 This section focuses on the minerals and metals that drive the bills of materials for EV, data centre and ET&D value chains, examining capacity signals, supply-demand balances and sources of supply Emerging supply volatility Overall supply-demand balances in 2024 were stable, with small gaps in select materials, such as manganese and aluminium, reflecting acute market dynamics – temporary shutdowns, rapid price swings, logistical constraints – rather than structural shortfalls. However, supply volatility is already visible. In Yunnan, China, droughts repeatedly cut hydropower, curbing aluminium output.27 Shutdowns like at Bald Hill in Australia removed lithium supply and exposed market fragility.28 Smelter closures and cutbacks reflect squeezed economics from low – and even negative – copper treatment and refining charges (TC/RCs), with governments and industry warning current fee levels are unsustainable.29 From Minerals to Megawatts: Building Resilience for EVs, Data Centres and Power Grids 20

From Minerals to Megawatts 2025