EV & Mobility Developed 2026 · C17 5 min Recording available on request
Electrification at Loss: Changing Tides in the North American BEV Industry
North American BEV sales did not follow the forecast the industry drew up in 2022, and the gap now sits on automakers' balance sheets. This case study puts participants on the board of an automaker with 10.8 percent of a 16.4 million unit North American market, or 1,772,000 vehicles in 2025. The sales numbers are final, total volumes are recovering, and the powertrain business is still deep in the red. The powertrain plan was fixed in late 2022 and meant to hold for 8 to 12 years. It is three years old and already wrong.
A recording of the participant presentation is available. Submit your details and we'll email you the link.
The Problem: Capacity Built for a Forecast That Never Arrived
Total North American light vehicle sales have climbed back to pre-pandemic levels. The loss sits in the mix. ICE sales fall year on year, BEV sales grow, and HEV sales grow faster than either. The forecast built in 2021 and 2022 had BEV volumes rising steadily; actual sales turned down once purchase incentives came off, and the distance between those two lines is what the board is now paying for. BEV powertrain capacity is oversupplied and hybrid capacity is short.
A second shift compounds it. Light-duty trucks, including SUVs and CUVs, now account for 86 percent of the passenger vehicle market, and that is the segment where buyers push back hardest on pure electrification.
The Approach: Three Questions from the Board
The board split the work across three subcommittees.
Marketing was asked why the 2022 forecast failed. The answer starts with how uneven BEV adoption is by region: Norway at 96 percent of new sales, China at 54 percent, Europe at 27 percent, a world average of 25 percent, and the USA at 9 percent. Norway has no domestic vehicle industry to protect and used incentives hard. China incentivised early and now leads on the technology. In Europe, dense urban areas and a sales channel dominated by leasing, Germany in particular, carried adoption. The US market runs on large SUVs and pickups, where range, towing and charging gaps bite hardest, and where the removal of federal incentives changed ownership economics outright.
Technology was asked where powertrains go next, and made the point that the limits are set by cost and convenience rather than by engineering. ICE development has matured into incremental efficiency work: combustion improvements, waste heat recovery, friction reduction, alternative fuel compatibility. Hybrids keep the engine and optimise the whole system, moving towards larger motors, stronger battery systems and multi-motor layouts. BEV development has shifted away from adding capacity, since more battery adds cost and weight, towards cell cost, fast charging, silicon-enhanced anodes and structural pack integration. Further out sit silicon-dominant anodes, next-generation lithium-ion chemistries, solid state and ultra-fast charging, which together move BEVs closer to cost parity.
Supply chain was asked what the demand reversal does to commitments already made. The team mapped the drivers in a fishbone: market demand, policy, geopolitics and domestic supply constraints acting at the same time. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act removed the Section 30D clean vehicle credit and tightened Section 45X eligibility, and tariffs raise input costs on top of that. Downstream takes the hardest hit, because that is where the capital went. New pack plants, dry rooms and converted BEV assembly lines run underutilised, which raises effective cost per kilowatt hour, while engine and hybrid transmission lines are capacity constrained. Midstream and upstream the problem is compliance. Non-FEOC content under Section 45X has to rise from 60 percent in 2026 to 85 percent by 2030. On an assumed 70/30 NMC to LFP mix, NMC can stay compliant at first with cathode material from Korea and Japan. LFP cannot, because that supply chain sits in China and a domestic alternative is unlikely before 2028. Graphite is the tighter bottleneck for both chemistries, with 80 to 90 percent of processing in China. Localisation takes 18 to 30 months even where a qualified supplier exists.
The Findings: Three Proposals, Three Kinds of Exposure
The 2025 baseline is 30 percent BEV, 30 percent HEV and 40 percent ICE in passenger cars and SUVs, with light-duty pickups still fully ICE. Each proposal moves from there differently, and each was costed as a full programme.
Proposal 1, Meet the Demand, stops the losses in the BEV division immediately. BEV production drops from 30 percent to 8 to 10 percent, BEV light-duty truck output is minimised, all BEV R&D and in-house cell and pack production stop, and remaining BEV volume comes from third-party contracts. Hybrid production for SUVs and CUVs doubles to 20 percent at once and reaches 30 percent by year eight, ICE holds at 60 percent, and ICE efficiency research targets a 30 percent emissions reduction by year eight. Production stays flat with no growth assumption. The programme costs roughly 3.6 billion dollars, including 1.7 billion of write-downs on cancelled BEV contracts, the largest write-down of the three.
Proposal 2, Hybrid Reality, ramps hybrids in the light-duty truck division and scales passenger car output back to follow demand. Hybrids rise from 10 to 30 percent in the first three years and towards 40 percent after that, BEV settles at 10 percent, BEV light-duty truck production stops, and in-house BEV development moves to third-party contracts while hybrid R&D increases. The programme costs about 3.3 billion dollars: 2.1 billion of capital for HEV and PHEV integration plus a flexible multi-energy line, and 1.1 billion of BEV contract write-downs.
Proposal 3, Break Away from North American Convention, treats electrification as inevitable and reduces ICE on purpose, from 60 to 40 percent in the first three years, then to 30 percent, then to 20 percent beyond year eight. Hybrids climb from 10 to 50 percent over the same period. BEV holds steady at 30 percent, repositioned as an inner-city product plus one small SUV sub-class, with a new sub-compact utility vehicle line in both HEV and BEV. Hybrid R&D doubles, targeting 40 percent emissions reduction by year five and 70 percent by year eight. Capital spend matches proposal 2 at 2.1 billion, but write-downs fall to 800 million, so the total programme cost is the lowest of the three at about 3.2 billion dollars.
The ranking is the interesting part. The most conservative proposal is the most expensive, because exiting BEV commitments means paying for them. All three share the same operational consequences: heavy retooling, penalties on cancelled cell contracts, loss of BEV engineering talent, and discontinued brands in the passenger car segment.
What It Means for the Industry
The forecast did not fail because the technology disappointed. It failed because US BEV demand is tied to policy and to charging convenience, and both moved. Any powertrain plan with an 8 to 12 year life now has to survive a four-year political cycle, which argues for manufacturing assets that can be re-pointed rather than assets optimised around one drivetrain. The costing supports that: the flexible multi-energy line appears in every proposal, and the proposal that keeps the most optionality carries the lowest total cost, because most of the money in a reversal goes to writing off commitments rather than to new equipment.
The compliance schedule adds a second clock. With non-FEOC content rising to 85 percent by 2030 and graphite processing concentrated in China, sourcing decisions taken now decide whether the 45X credit still applies at the end of the decade.
Participants split on the answer. In the live poll, meet the demand and break away from North American convention drew similar support, and hybrid reality drew the least. The breakout discussions tracked risk appetite more than data. One group backed meeting demand as the honest read of today's market, another backed keeping optionality, and one asked which of today's incumbents ends up as the Kodak of this cycle.
Key Takeaways
The powertrain plan was set in late 2022 for 8 to 12 years and was outdated within three, because US BEV demand moves with policy.
US BEV share sits at 9 percent against 96 percent in Norway, 54 percent in China and 27 percent in Europe, so North American strategy cannot be copied from other markets.
Light-duty trucks, SUVs and CUVs make up 86 percent of the passenger vehicle market, and that is where resistance to pure BEVs is strongest.
Retreating from BEV is the most expensive option, at roughly 3.6 billion dollars against 3.2 billion for the most electrified proposal, because write-downs on cancelled cell contracts dominate the bill.
Hybrid cells are a different product made under different process conditions, so converting BEV cell lines is not economically justified and hybrid cells stay externally sourced.
Non-FEOC content under Section 45X rises from 60 percent in 2026 to 85 percent by 2030. LFP is the harder chemistry to keep compliant, and graphite is the main bottleneck for both.
A flexible multi-energy line appears in all three proposals, which makes convertible capacity the common answer regardless of the powertrain call.
Disclaimer: This case study was developed and presented by BatteryMBA participants as part of the Case Study Track. Views, analysis and recommendations are the authors' own. BatteryMBA does not take responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of the content and it should not be relied upon as investment, engineering or legal advice.
This is the public summary, the full case study lives inside the programme
Every BatteryMBA cohort runs the Case Study Track: small teams build the full recommendation, backed by a written document and a live presentation, supported by the BatteryMBA team. Full case study documents are not shared outside the programme.
North American BEV marketpowertrain strategyhybrid vehiclesSection 45XFEOC complianceEV demand slowdownautomotive supply chainOne Big Beautiful Bill Act