Ford and GM Accelerate into Energy Storage, Following Tesla's Lead

Ford and General Motors are converting parts of their battery and pack capacity to stationary applications — from grid-scale projects and commercial installations to residential home storage — as a tactical response to softer U.S. EV uptake. The pivot preserves throughput at cell and pack lines, creates nearer-term revenue pathways and leverages existing supplier relationships and recycling partnerships.

The market case for that shift is grounded in rapidly expanding demand for battery energy storage systems: market projections continue to show strong annual growth into the remainder of the decade. Industry public disclosures illustrate the commercial potential — Tesla’s energy business has scaled into the mid‑40s gigawatt‑hours of deployed storage capacity in recent reporting periods and contributes multibillion‑dollar revenues with gross margins that, in some filings, outpace vehicle margins. That commercial proof point reduces perceived execution risk for OEMs repurposing cell capacity toward stationary products.

Ford has already retooled manufacturing in Kentucky and designated capacity in Marshall, Michigan to support hybrid production and residential storage cells, with roughly $10 billion reported spent on plant adaptations and about $2 billion of additional investment planned. The company’s decision follows an EV-related accounting charge — a large portfolio write-down that prompted a more cautious EV rollout strategy and encouraged near‑term monetisation of cell output in other markets.

GM is broadening its energy product suite and deepening links across materials and recycling chains, including publicised collaboration with Redwood Materials. Its consumer-facing PowerBank line (offered in roughly 10.6 kWh and 17.7 kWh sizes) has shown rapid sales acceleration, with energy-related revenue growth expanding severalfold in a recent year‑to‑date window.

Policy and procurement dynamics strengthen the business case for OEM entry into stationary storage. Recent U.S. industrial incentives, regional content pushes and production tax credits have raised the relative competitiveness of North American cell and pack supply, encouraging automakers to lock in domestic sourcing and to reallocate capacity where margins and demand visibility are stronger. That localisation impulse is reinforced by buyers — utilities and large commercial customers — that prize shorter procurement timelines and domestic supply chains to reduce reliance on distant cell imports.

However, the near‑term opportunity sits alongside several headwinds. Average selling prices for large-format systems are under pressure from intensifying competition, tariff and incentive changes have changed residential economics in some jurisdictions, and capital allocation choices remain complex: Tesla itself has reallocated some capacity toward robotics and AI initiatives even as its energy arm expands, illustrating how factory bandwidth and investment priorities can shift quickly. Technological competition — from structural cell‑to‑body packs to incremental lithium‑ion chemistry improvements and nascent solid‑state pilots — will also shape which suppliers and pack architectures capture the most value.

For utilities and grid operators, additional OEM‑backed storage supply can shorten delivery schedules and increase bargaining options; for automakers, stationary storage converts underutilised cell lines into revenue while preserving the flexibility to reconvert capacity back to EV packs should consumer demand recover. The outcome will depend on the pace of utility procurement, the durability of policy support for domestic manufacturing, and how technology and recycling value chains evolve to contain costs and secure critical minerals.

• Reported deployed storage by a major energy‑storage competitor: mid‑40s GWh (public reporting has cited figures in the ~43–47 GWh range across recent periods)
• Major energy business revenues: reported at multibillion‑dollar levels and materially accretive to company profitability
• Ford adaptation spend: approximately $10 billion; planned additional investment: ~$2 billion
• Ford EV‑related charge: roughly $19.5 billion write‑down
• GM PowerBank sizes: ≈10.6 kWh and 17.7 kWh; energy sales growth: several‑fold increase in recent year‑to‑date figures
• Global BESS market projection: strong double‑digit CAGR into the late 2020s

Early movers among OEMs that can combine domestic sourcing, recycling partnerships and flexible production footprints stand to secure utilisation and pricing advantages; laggards may face steeper costs to restart or reconfigure lines if EV demand resurfaces. In short, automakers’ push into stationary storage is both an industrial hedge against EV cyclicality and a strategic bet on the expanding role of batteries in power systems and commercial energy services.