How US Auto Workers Can Thrive in the EV Transition

Battery electric vehicles (BEVs) are the future of the automotive industry, both globally and in the United States. Approximately 1.56 million electric vehicles (including BEVs and plug-in hybrid vehicles, with BEVs dominating sales) were sold in the U.S. in 2024, representing 10% of all light-duty vehicle sales. The U.S. has passed the BEV “tipping point,” after which demand is expected to grow from niche market to broader adoption by consumers. Growth has continued even in this year’s turbulent policy environment: Over 438,000 electric vehicles were sold in the United States in the third quarter of 2025 as buyers rushed to take advantage of the expiring federal tax credit — a 41% increase over the previous quarter and a 30% increase year over year.

Driven by advancements in battery technology, expanding production volumes and a global shift toward electrification, BEVs are an increasingly attractive alternative to internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs). This shift is not just shaping the future of transportation; it also has profound implications for the workers manufacturing those vehicles.

Yet while there is growing awareness around how the transition from ICEVs to BEVs could impact automotive manufacturing workers, many questions remain: What are the vulnerable occupations in ICEV manufacturing, and how can those workers transition to new opportunities? What new occupations and skills in BEV manufacturing will be in demand? And how does the transition impact other workforce considerations, such as job quality, location, workforce inclusivity and diversity?

A new WRI report answers these questions. It clarifies what policies and investments will be needed to develop a diverse and skilled BEV manufacturing workforce while ensuring the transition doesn’t leave vulnerable ICEV manufacturing workers behind. The findings drew upon analysis of labor market data, a survey of automotive manufacturing employers, and stakeholder interviews. Here, we present the key findings from the report.

1) Workers in gasoline engine and engine parts manufacturing will face significant disruption. But even the most vulnerable workers in this field may have opportunities to transition into battery manufacturing and adjacent industries.

Workers in gasoline engine and engine parts manufacturing represent 7% of workers in original equipment manufacturers (OEMs, which design, assemble and sell the final vehicles) and Tier 1 industries (companies that provide parts to OEMs). These workers manufacture components like pistons, crankshafts, cylinder heads and fuel injection systems that go into ICEV engines and are absent from BEV production.

An estimated 65% of workers in OEMs and Tier 1 automotive manufacturing will face moderate impacts due to differences in manufacturing processes for ICEVs and BEVs. For instance, the braking system and transmission of BEVs differ from ICEVs, and traditional automotive manufacturing workers will need to adapt their skills to work in the BEV industry. The remaining workers in OEMs and Tier 1 industries will face minimal disruption due to minor or no differences in manufacturing processes. For instance, the steering system is similar in both ICEVs and BEVs.

Focusing on the most vulnerable workers within gasoline engine manufacturing, our analysis finds that proactive reskilling efforts can enable those workers to transition to emerging roles within battery manufacturing and adjacent industries (such as electronics, software or data management) that require similar skillsets. Some occupations are common to both gasoline engine and battery manufacturing. These occupations share foundational, transferrable skills, though differences remain due to industry-specific knowledge and requirements. For instance, team assemblers assemble various gasoline engine components within gasoline engine and engine parts manufacturing; in battery manufacturing, they assemble battery components according to specifications and ensure quality control. Similarly, computer numerically controlled (CNC) tool operators are needed in both types of manufacturing. In gasoline engine manufacturing, CNC operators make precise components like engine blocks, pistons and other parts, while in battery manufacturing, they produce critical pieces of machinery or components used in the assembly of batteries.

Our analysis finds that if retraining efforts are prioritized, some of the most vulnerable workers in gasoline engine and engine parts manufacturing could find employment in similar occupations within battery manufacturing. By 2032, for instance, new team assembler jobs in battery manufacturing could potentially offset 63% of those lost in gasoline engine and engine parts manufacturing.

Transitioning vulnerable workers in gasoline engine manufacturing to similar occupations in battery manufacturing

^{Note: Percentages in column 4 may seem off because employment numbers here are presented in thousands. Source: US Automotive Manufacturing Workers in the Transition to Battery Electric Vehicles}

In addition, vulnerable ICEV manufacturing workers can potentially transition to new occupations in battery manufacturing and adjacent industries with similar knowledge, skills and abilities (KSAs). Our analysis looked at differences in wages between the vulnerable occupations in gasoline engine and engine parts manufacturing, and occupations in battery manufacturing and adjacent industries with similar KSAs and that are expected to see employment growth. We found that the new occupations generally provide higher wages.

One contributing factor could be that these jobs require more specialized technical skills in comparison to the mechanically intensive production occupations within gasoline engine manufacturing. There is significant overlap in skills between team assemblers and electrical, electronic and electromechanical equipment assemblers. In particular, they share foundational assembly skills, including proficiency in the use of tools, manual dexterity and precision, and the ability to read technical drawings and blueprints. While this means that transitioning to these similar occupations is possible, it will require upskilling for greater technical expertise or machine operation skills.

Reskilling and upskilling workers to transition from ICEV to BEV production will require focused and coordinated efforts from the public and private sectors. The emphasis must be on providing support and retraining for dislocated workers, and developing upskilling programs that help workers address gaps in their knowledge and skills for new technologies associated with BEVs.

2) There’s a geographic mismatch between areas where ICEV manufacturing jobs are being lost and where new BEV manufacturing jobs are emerging. This requires proactive efforts to align ICEV workforce skills with evolving industry needs.

BEV manufacturing is growing in traditional automotive manufacturing powerhouses, such as Michigan. It is also growing in states with newly developed automotive manufacturing clusters, such as Georgia. Transitioning workers from ICEV to BEV manufacturing within the same factory, county or even state may be relatively seamless, while workers in some states might face greater challenges due to geography. Even if there are new BEV manufacturing opportunities available for ICEV workers, those opportunities may require relocation alongside investments in reskilling efforts. Factors such as family and community ties, housing affordability and other preferences may lead to displaced or at-risk workers wanting to remain in their current locations. Studies on other industry transitions have shown a significant mismatch, where a vast majority of workers do not transition to new jobs in different locations, even when their skills theoretically align.

Proactive reskilling and geographically targeted initiatives will be critical to address these challenges. This can include tailoring transition support and policies to ICEV manufacturing workers most likely to be impacted by the transition. Michigan’s Community & Worker Economic Transition Office, for instance, is providing targeted transition support to Michiganders navigating shifts in the automotive and energy sectors.

State and local governments should also prioritize the creation of economic and workforce development initiatives to support new industries in regions that are most prone to displacement of ICEV manufacturing workers. In addition to battery manufacturing, states can strategically invest in broader transportation and advanced manufacturing industries — such as aerospace, robotics, automation, advanced materials and semiconductors — which significantly overlap with the skills, technologies and supply chain needs of BEV manufacturing. For instance, Accelerating Ohio’s Auto & Advanced Mobility Workforce Strategy is built on attracting the broader automotive, aviation, aerospace and advanced mobility industries to Ohio. Significant investment in training programs will be required to bridge the specific skills gaps between ICEV manufacturing workers and other growth industries, which often include more digital technology-related skills, data management and automation knowledge.

3) In addition to BEV-specific skills, workers in BEV manufacturing will require knowledge about managing automated processes.

Automation is significantly impacting automotive manufacturing. Regardless of the pace of BEV adoption, upgrading workers’ knowledge, as well as their ability to manage and troubleshoot more computerized or automated manufacturing processes, is a top priority for automotive manufacturers. At the same time, the BEV transition is accelerating automation to support new manufacturing processes, such as battery assembly and electric motor manufacturing. For instance, battery assembly entails high levels of accuracy and repeatability for placing individual cells, modules and other components, making it a highly attractive area for automation. Artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning and big data are used to optimize battery design and predict maintenance needs, linking the need for automated systems knowledge with BEV-specific knowledge.

More than half of surveyed automotive manufacturing firms responded that new hires generally require many additional BEV-specific knowledge and skills, while 38% of respondents noted that new hires require some additional knowledge and skills. When asked what new knowledge or skills are required, 17% of respondents identified proficiency in the use of computer systems, AI and robotics as the most needed skill for workers in BEV manufacturing. Other skills in high demand are those related to knowledge of advanced manufacturing processes and safety procedures; mechanical and electrical systems; and battery technology.

Training programs must adapt to these changes. This means offering compelling workforce programs that 1) integrate hands-on robotics and AI training into BEV manufacturing curricula, and 2) emphasize data literacy and technical skills. State agencies, educational institutions and training providers should work with employers and industry associations to reskill and upskill current automotive workers and attract new workers for roles that align with the specific needs of the BEV industry. Funding can be targeted toward short-term credentials and industry-focused programs that integrate these necessary skills. Providing sustained and strategic investment in employer-based apprenticeship programs that offer “earn-and-learn” opportunities can also support the automotive industry as it updates its manufacturing lines to expand into BEV production.

4) There is a significant need to ramp up and spread training programs as the automotive industry transitions toward BEVs.

Automotive manufacturing firms are already investing significantly in training programs to upskill and reskill incumbent workers as well as train prospective workers. But there is much room for improvement across the industry. Nearly 48% of automotive manufacturing firms that responded to the survey directly offer training programs for both incumbent and prospective workers. Among these firms, over half offer on-the-job training programs, and 17% offer internships, apprenticeships or boot camps.

Only one in four firms have established formal partnerships with state agencies or local training or educational institutions to address their workforce training needs. Half of these partnerships are with local schools, colleges and universities.

Larger firms are more likely to directly offer training programs and to have established partnerships with an external organization for workforce development. Many small and medium-sized (SME) firms, which constitute the majority of automotive manufacturing companies, face significant barriers that limit their investments in upskilling and reskilling workers. These challenges can include financial and resource constraints, inability to keep pace with rapid technological advancements, lack of awareness about the relationship between training investment and long-term business success, and lack of access to programs tailored to the unique needs of SMEs.

Moreover, existing economic and workforce development policies often fail to adequately support or provide incentives for SMEs to engage in training new or existing workers. This contributes to a growing skills gap in the U.S. automotive sector, which could hurt the industry’s global competitiveness. Governments, along with other partners, can support SMEs through a combination of financial incentives, customized training programs, and reduced administrative burden associated with applying for and managing training funds. State economic development agencies can provide matching grants or job creation tax credits to reduce the cost of training for businesses.

While larger firms can more easily build a pipeline of workers through apprenticeship programs, SMEs may struggle to do the same due to limited resources. This could be addressed by directing state funds to create an apprenticeship program for a consortium of smaller companies with similar training needs. Intermediaries could handle the administration and logistics of establishing an apprenticeship program, as well as engage with educational providers on behalf of the consortium to create structured on-the-job training for apprentices at each company.

5) The BEV transition is mostly seen as an opportunity by the automotive industry. Employers view the transition as a reallocation of workers and resources, rather than an outright displacement.

This survey was conducted in 2024, before President Trump took office and his administration made significant rollbacks to U.S. federal clean energy policy. With that said, over half of the automotive manufacturers surveyed see the transition to BEVs as an opportunity. Only 1 in 10 identified the transition as a “threat,” and approximately 1 in 4 stated there would be trade-offs. The survey also revealed that automotive manufacturers which have not yet shifted to offering BEV products are more likely to feel threatened. Manufacturers only producing ICEV or hybrid vehicle products and subcomponents see the transition as a threat at a rate more than 2 times higher than manufacturers already producing BEV products and subcomponents.

Recent news indicates that automotive manufacturers remain optimistic about the long-term future of the transition in the United States, but with a more cautious approach in the short term. With the federal government backtracking, it is even more crucial for U.S. states to continue sending strong market signals to the industry — and to support consumer adoption where possible by building robust charging infrastructure and providing incentives and rebates. After the elimination of the federal $7,500 tax credit for the purchase of a qualifying new electric vehicle, some state and local governments are increasing consumer incentives for buying them. Strategies like this can help sustain a positive outlook for the U.S. BEV industry.

Immediate and Proactive Workforce Planning Is Essential

Any transition from one technology to another takes place over multiple years or decades. During this time, there are periods of acceleration and periods of slower growth due to shifting policy changes and other market forces.

The move toward BEVs is no exception. This transition is already underway and here to stay, making immediate and proactive workforce planning essential to navigate job shifts, address skills gaps and ensure an equitable transition for workers.

Although automotive manufacturers are primarily responsible for training their workforce, government agencies and educational and training institutions are pivotal partners in building a BEV-ready workforce. By aligning curricula and training programs with industry needs and supporting vocational training and apprenticeship programs, these stakeholders can play an important role in developing a workforce pipeline that can power the electric manufacturing revolution we need.

To learn more, read our new report: US automotive manufacturing workers in the transition to battery electric vehicles: An assessment of the impact and opportunities