£28 Million in Funding: The UK Launches a 100-Hour Energy Storage Challenge!
The UK has recently launched an interesting initiative: the Ultra-Long Duration Energy Storage Challenge . UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) is providing £28 million in funding to support the development of energy storage technologies capable of supplying power continuously for 100 hours or more. To achieve continuous energy supply of more than 100 hours, the UK is not betting on just one technology. Instead, it is supporting two directions at the same time. • Advanced electrochemical energy storage technologies: The UK aims to develop new battery technologies capable of providing power for more than 100 hours. According to UKRI, these technologies have not yet been commercialised at scale, so the focus at this stage is to continue validating their technical, engineering and cost feasibility. • Underground hydrogen storage: The programme will also support the development and testing of systems that store hydrogen underground and release it when needed. So, the £28 million is not simply being used to purchase existing 100-hour storage systems. The UK wants to use R&D support to identify which technologies can genuinely provide continuous multi-day energy supply while remaining economically viable. 100 Hours of Continuous Discharge — and a 25-Year Operating Life A specific funding round has already opened for the electrochemical energy storage track. As part of the wider programme, the UK has allocated up to £3 million to support project development studies for electrochemical ultra-long duration energy storage technologies. Applications opened on 3 August 2026 and will close at 11:00 am UK time on 30 September 2026 . The funding round has a clear domestic focus. UK-registered businesses can apply independently or lead a consortium, regardless of company size. Organisations receiving funding must carry out the project work in the UK, intend to exploit the results in the UK, and spend most of the funding within the UK. According to the competition requirements, eligible technologies must be capable of providing at least 100 continuous hours of discharge and must achieve a working life of at least 25 years . Individual projects can request between £350,000 and £700,000 in grant funding. Applicants must also provide a technology assessment, engineering design, cost and scale-up roadmap, manufacturing and supply chain plan, as well as other project development work. In other words, applicants need to think through not only how the system will be built, but also how costs can be reduced and how production can eventually be scaled. That is also the purpose of this funding round: to strengthen project proposals before moving toward larger-scale demonstration projects. First Develop the Project, Then Build Large-Scale Demonstrators The electrochemical energy storage track is being advanced through a two-phase approach. Phase 1 focuses on project development studies. Under the current plan, Phase 2 is scheduled to launch in mid-2027 , with at least £10 million allocated to support the development and delivery of large-scale ultra-long duration energy storage demonstrators. However, Phase 2 remains a planned programme at this stage, and detailed application requirements and implementation rules are still to be announced. UKRI has also set a longer-term ambition to support one to two demonstrators above 100 MWh by 2030 , with the goal of achieving GWh-scale grid deployment by 2035. Official Funding Entry The currently open competition is the £3 million Electrochemical Ultra-Long Duration Energy Storage Phase 1 competition . UKRI Official Funding Opportunity Ultra-Long Duration Energy Storage: Project Development Studies Direct Application Portal — UK Government Innovation Funding Service Start Application The £28 million refers to the overall Ultra-Long Duration Energy Storage Challenge, while the currently open electrochemical Phase 1 competition provides up to £3 million in funding.
Beyond the Rankings: What HTW Berlin and aquu's Energy Storage Inspection 2026 Test Really Shows
HTW Berlin and aquu's Energy Storage Inspection 2026 tested 12 residential PV-battery systems involving 10 manufacturers. Eight manufacturers participated publicly under their brand names, while two additional DC-coupled systems were independently purchased by the testing team and presented anonymously. Beyond comparing overall system efficiency, the report also breaks down usable capacity, conversion efficiency, battery efficiency, dynamic control, standby consumption, and other key aspects. Looking at the final results, SAX Power ranked first in the 5 kW class, while FOX ESS set a new record for the 10 kW reference case with an SPI of 97.0%. However, the real value of the report goes beyond simply producing a ranking. It raises a more important question: Why do residential storage systems with seemingly similar specifications still show meaningful differences in real operating performance? To answer that question, we first need to start with the ranking itself. 5 kW and 10 kW: Who Leads in 2026? HTW evaluates systems using two different reference cases: SPI (5 kW) and SPI (10 kW) . The 5 kW class represents a smaller residential PV and household-load configuration, while the 10 kW class reflects a larger PV system with additional loads such as a heat pump and an electric vehicle. Therefore, the two SPI values should not be compared directly; the meaningful comparison is within each class. In the 5 kW class, SAX Power Home Plus ranked first with an SPI of 93.2% . SMA Sunny Boy Smart Energy 5.0 paired with Home Storage 6.5 followed closely at 92.8% , while the DC-coupled KOSTAL PLENTICORE MP G3 M 4.6 paired with BYD Battery-Box HVS+ 7.7 ranked third at 92.7%. Only 0.5 percentage points separated the top three systems, showing that the leading products in this class are already performing at a very similar overall level. The gap was more pronounced in the 10 kW class. FOX ESS PQ-H3-Ultra-10.0 paired with EQ3300-5 ranked first with an SPI of 97.0% , which the report identifies as a new record for this reference case. RCT Power ranked second at 96.4%, while Energy Depot, Fronius, and the DC-coupled KOSTAL + BYD system all remained above 95%. By comparison, the two anonymously purchased systems achieved only 91.9% and 89.3% , corresponding to Efficiency Classes D and G. Overall, 10 of the 12 tested systems achieved Efficiency Class A or B, indicating that mainstream residential storage systems have already reached a relatively high level of overall efficiency. But this also raises another question: If most systems are already "highly efficient," why can SPI still range from 97.0% down to 89.3%? The answer lies in the different types of losses within the system. Where Do the Differences Between Leading Systems Come From? The value of SPI is that it does not focus on a single peak conversion-efficiency figure. Instead, it incorporates multiple sources of system loss. HTW divides these into Sizing losses, Conversion losses, Control losses, and Standby losses , making it possible to see more clearly where energy is actually being lost. In the 10 kW class, FOX ESS had total losses of just 3.0% , while the weakest anonymous system reached 10.7% . For most products, conversion losses remained the largest contributor, but they were not the only factor. How accurately and quickly the control system follows changing loads, as well as how much energy the system consumes at low power or in standby mode, also accumulates into the final SPI result. This explains why looking only at inverter efficiency or battery capacity can easily lead to an incomplete conclusion. Even if a product has very high conversion efficiency under ideal conditions, its annual performance in a real home can still be dragged down if efficiency falls sharply at low load or if additional losses continue to accumulate during control and standby operation. That leads to another test in the report that deserves closer attention: partial-load efficiency. Why Partial-Load Efficiency Matters Residential storage systems do not operate continuously at 5 kW or 10 kW. In reality, refrigerators, lighting, standby appliances, and basic household loads often add up to only a few hundred watts. As a result, efficiency in the low-power range may be more representative of what users actually experience day to day than peak efficiency. The report shows that at 200 W discharge, the highest tested efficiency reached 92.1% , while the less-efficient reference inverter achieved only 70.7% . At 100 W, the gap widened further: RCT Power reached 86.1% , while the lowest reference system dropped to just 53.9% . This result matters because it shows that while leading systems may perform very similarly at rated or higher power levels, the gap can widen again quickly once they move into the low-load range that is more common in residential use. For home-storage users, the more useful question in the future may no longer be simply "What is the maximum efficiency?" but rather "How efficient is the system at the power levels my home actually uses most of the time?" However, partial-load efficiency only explains how much energy is lost. It does not yet answer another key question: Can the system respond quickly enough when household demand keeps changing? Response Speed and Standby Performance Also Start to Matter Residential loads are not static. Heat pumps switch on, EV charging changes, and even ordinary household appliances continuously alter the power demand. A storage system therefore needs not only to be efficient, but also to adjust its output quickly enough. In the dynamic control tests, Energy Depot and RCT Power both recorded a settling time of just 0.2 seconds, the fastest result in the report. The two anonymous systems, by contrast, required 13.7 seconds and 10.9 seconds respectively. This difference means that when household demand changes suddenly, a faster system can adjust battery power more quickly, while a slower system may temporarily import additional electricity from the grid or feed more power into it. In other words, system performance depends not only on how much energy is lost during each conversion, but also on whether the system can respond correctly at the right time. The same logic applies to standby consumption. The report shows that some high-performing systems can keep standby power consumption to only a few watts, while certain systems consume noticeably more when the battery is discharged. These losses may not appear significant in a single moment, but for a residential storage system that spends many hours each year at low load or in standby mode, they eventually accumulate into real operating costs. By this point, the report has moved from "Who ranks first?" to "Why do different systems behave differently in real operation?" But for users, there is still one more practical question: What are these efficiency differences actually worth? Dynamic Tariffs Make Efficiency More Important The second half of the report goes on to examine grid charging under dynamic electricity tariffs. The basic logic is straightforward: charge the battery from the grid when electricity prices are low, then use the stored energy to supply the home when prices are higher, reducing electricity costs through the price spread. But this model only works under one condition: the price spread must be large enough to cover the system losses generated during charging, storage, and discharging. HTW provides a clear example. In a more efficient system, grid electricity can achieve an overall efficiency of 78% after going through the complete charge-storage-discharge process, while a less-efficient system reaches only 63%. If the system is also operating at low power, the decline in partial-load efficiency can further reduce the economic benefit. As dynamic tariffs, smart meters, and intelligent EMS become more common across Europe, efficiency is no longer just a laboratory performance metric. It is increasingly likely to determine how much real value a storage system can capture from electricity-market price fluctuations. This also suggests that the competitive logic of residential storage may change. Simply increasing battery capacity will not guarantee better economics. The system must also be able to charge and discharge with lower losses, while responding quickly to household demand and electricity-price signals. What Do the 2026 Test Results Tell Us? On the surface, Energy Storage Inspection 2026 is an efficiency ranking. But the logic connecting the report is actually quite clear: the ranking is the outcome, system losses explain the outcome, partial-load and dynamic-control tests reveal the differences in real-world operation, and dynamic electricity pricing ultimately turns those technical differences into economic differences. SAX Power and FOX ESS took first place in the 5 kW and 10 kW classes respectively. But as peak efficiency among mainstream products continues to converge, the factors that may increasingly differentiate products are partial-load efficiency, control response, standby consumption, and how well the entire system performs together under real residential conditions. For consumers, installers, and distributors, this means that comparing residential storage systems may increasingly require moving beyond a single nominal capacity or maximum-efficiency figure toward a broader question: How much of the energy handled by this system can actually be turned into real value under real household conditions and real electricity prices? Source: HTW Berlin & aquu, Energy Storage Inspection 2026, Version 1.0, March 2026.
"PCS-Free" Energy Storage Has Entered Commercial Deployment
Last year, we introduced an Australian energy storage company that was doing something a little "counterintuitive" — Relectrify. At the time, the company had just secured A$25 million in funding from the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) and was preparing to bring a storage system called AC1 to the commercial market. For those who read our previous article, you may still remember what made it so unusual. This energy storage system does not require a conventional standalone inverter. Instead, through its CellSwitch technology, it can directly generate grid-compliant AC power from the battery side. Traditional energy storage systems typically rely on the architecture of "battery + BMS + PCS/inverter," while Relectrify is trying to redesign a system logic that has been used for many years. At the time, however, AC1 was still largely at the stage of "preparing for large-scale commercial deployment." Now, there is an update! Relectrify recently announced that the first AC1 energy storage system has been installed in Renmark, South Australia, in partnership with local energy company YES Energy. The system has a capacity of 250 kVA / 1,089 kWh usable capacity. YES Energy also confirmed that the system is now operational. From receiving government funding, to completing grid connection and safety certification, and finally to having its first system installed at a customer site, this energy storage system that does not use a conventional standalone inverter has finally moved from a product and technology concept into a real customer site and started operating. After A$25 Million in Funding, the First System Is Finally Installed Let's go back to October 2025. At the time, ARENA announced A$25 million in funding for Relectrify to accelerate the commercialization of AC1. According to the plan, the funding would support Relectrify in deploying up to 100 MWh of AC1 energy storage systems, primarily for commercial and industrial users. ARENA had actually made the purpose of this round of funding very clear. In addition to helping Relectrify expand its deployment scale, these projects would also be used to accumulate real-world operating experience, obtain key performance data, and establish demonstration projects that could be presented to future customers. So, 100 MWh was simply a scale target. What really mattered was that AC1 had to move from R&D and certification into actual customer sites, allowing the first batch of users to put it into operation. The Renmark system represents exactly this step. Although the project is relatively small, at only around 1 MWh, the first real-world deployment itself may be more noteworthy than the capacity. For a new energy storage technology that differs significantly from the traditional architecture, the first actual deployment matters because commercializing a new storage technology is never just about product specifications. It also has to overcome grid connection, certification, customer acceptance, engineering delivery, and long-term operational stability.Over the past few months, Relectrify has completed several of these critical steps. Before the First Deployment, It First Obtained the "Grid Connection Pass" Shortly before the Renmark project was installed, Relectrify announced that AC1 had completed a series of important certifications. These included AS/NZS 4777.2 certification, which is required for grid connection in Australia and New Zealand, as well as a series of IEC safety certifications for energy storage and power conversion equipment. Conventional energy storage systems output DC electricity from the battery, which is then converted into AC electricity through a standalone PCS or inverter. AC1, however, uses Relectrify's CellSwitchTM cell-level control technology, which can independently control individual cells and directly generate grid-compliant AC power from the battery side, eliminating the need for a separate conventional standalone inverter. Because of this different architecture, whether it could actually connect to the power system under existing grid connection and safety rules was itself a critical hurdle that had to be overcome for commercialization. So this time, the key point is not simply that a 1 MWh energy storage project has been completed, but that a product based on an architecture different from conventional systems has entered a customer site for the first time after completing certification. Certification and the first installation are actually two closely connected steps: the former answers the question of "can it enter the market?" while the latter tests "is there a customer willing to actually use it?" What Is the First Customer Using It For? YES Energy has also disclosed the current application of this AC1 system. The system is primarily being used alongside solar PV, storing electricity generated during the day and shifting it to periods of higher demand or higher electricity prices, while also providing support when the local grid is under pressure. This is actually consistent with the market direction Relectrify initially selected for AC1. Rather than immediately challenging hundreds of MW or multi-GWh utility-scale storage projects, it is first targeting commercial and industrial applications, smaller front-of-the-meter storage projects, and distributed energy scenarios. Residential energy storage has already become relatively mature, while large-scale grid-side storage is also expanding rapidly. But factories, commercial facilities, and industrial parks in between these two segments also have demand for reducing electricity costs, maximizing solar self-consumption, and improving energy flexibility. Entering the market through this segment first is actually quite practical for AC1. Compared with directly entering large-scale energy storage projects, commercial and industrial projects of around 1 MWh are better suited for a new technology to gradually accumulate operating data, validate reliability, and then scale up. Final Thoughts When we first followed Relectrify, it was mainly because the company had proposed a very different energy storage system architecture. In conventional energy storage systems, a single underperforming cell can affect the entire battery string. The idea behind CellSwitch is to move control further down to the cell level, allowing each individual cell to be monitored and controlled independently. On this basis, Relectrify has further integrated battery management and power conversion capabilities, enabling the system to directly generate AC power. According to the company’s published data, this architecture can enable AC1 to deliver approximately 20% more energy over a 20-year battery lifetime. This is also one of the product performance indicators Relectrify highlighted again in its announcement of the Renmark project. However, for Relectrify, the real question is no longer whether "AC1 can be built." Instead, several more practical questions now need to be answered: Can it operate reliably over the long term? Can the company quickly replicate the first system with a second and third deployment? And can the energy utilization, reliability, and cost advantages created by this architecture continue to hold up after several years of operation in real-world projects?
China Adds a 2% Battery Consumption Tax: What Should Overseas Companies Know?
Starting September 1, China has resumed collecting consumption tax on selected battery products. Under policies issued by the Ministry of Finance, the General Administration of Customs and the State Taxation Administration, mercury-free primary batteries, nickel-metal hydride batteries, primary lithium batteries, lithium-ion batteries and all-vanadium flow batteries are now subject to a 2% consumption tax. The rate will increase to 4% on September 1, 2027. The authorities have also clarified the tax boundaries among battery cells, battery packs, battery clusters and complete energy storage systems. Different product forms, export models and supply-chain arrangements may therefore lead to different cost outcomes. Consumption tax mainly applies to production, commissioned processing and imports within China. Qualifying direct battery exports remain eligible for consumption tax exemption or refund. What should overseas companies pay the most attention to? First, China is not applying a single tax rate to every battery. The policy is being introduced in stages according to product type and technology: China has also tightened the requirements for tax exemptions. Whether a product qualifies does not depend on its commercial name; it must be supported by a test report showing compliance with the relevant national standard The authorities have specifically clarified that semi-solid-state batteries use both liquid and solid electrolytes. They therefore do not meet the policy definition of solid-state batteries and cannot receive the solid-state battery exemption. Another important change concerns upstream tax deductions. When a company purchases taxed batteries and uses them to manufacture another taxable battery product, it may deduct the upstream consumption tax based on the quantity actually used and supported by valid documentation. For example, a company that purchases taxed battery cells and assembles them into taxable battery clusters may deduct the consumption tax already paid on the cells, avoiding double taxation across the production chain. What is most relevant to the energy storage industry? The State Taxation Administration has answered one of the storage industry's biggest questions, and clarification is particularly important for system integrators. When a company purchases lithium-ion cells and connects them in series or parallel to form a battery cluster, that cluster is treated as a taxable battery pack and is subject to consumption tax. However, if the company further integrates the battery cluster with electrical, thermal-management, fire-protection and control systems to create a complete energy storage system, the final product is treated as a complete set of power equipment rather than a taxable battery product. That does not necessarily mean a complete energy storage system contains no consumption-tax cost. If an integrator purchases cells or battery clusters on which consumption tax has already been paid, and that tax cannot be deducted further, it may become part of the system cost and eventually be reflected in the final quotation. In other words, "the energy storage system itself is not subject to consumption tax" and "the system price is unaffected" are not the same thing. Overseas buyers should not determine a product's tax status solely from commercial descriptions such as "energy storage cabinet," "battery system" or "battery container." They should confirm what the product actually includes and how it is invoiced and exported. Overseas buyers may bear part of the cost If a taxed battery is installed in another non-taxable product and then exported as part of that finished product, The upstream consumption tax may remain embedded in its cost. Use new energy vehicles as an example. A company purchases lithium-ion battery packs on which consumption tax has already been paid and uses them to manufacture vehicles for export. Because the exported product is a vehicle rather than a taxable battery, the consumption tax paid on the battery packs cannot be refunded under the rules for direct battery exports. The cost may be absorbed by the battery supplier or vehicle manufacturer, or passed on to overseas importers through higher quotations. This is also relevant to overseas companies purchasing battery-powered construction machinery, robots, mobile equipment and other finished products from China. Buyers should confirm whether upstream battery consumption tax affects the quotation and whether the increase to 4% in 2027 could trigger a price adjustment. The authorities have not yet clarified whether exports of complete energy storage systems will always receive the same treatment. Overseas BESS buyers should therefore ask suppliers whether the consumption tax arising from cells or battery clusters can be deducted and whether it has already been included in the system quotation. For overseas buyers purchasing cells, battery packs or battery clusters directly from China, prices should not automatically rise by 2% as long as the supplier can properly obtain the applicable consumption tax exemption or refund. However, suppliers will face additional work related to product classification, testing, invoicing, deduction ledgers and export declarations. They may also face greater working-capital pressure while waiting for tax refunds. These costs could be passed on to overseas customers through quotations, payment terms or contract clauses. Overseas energy storage companies should be particularly clear about whether they are purchasing cells, modules, battery packs, battery clusters or a complete BESS. Different product forms may receive different tax treatment in China and may affect whether upstream tax can be deducted or refunded. Long-term contracts should also account for the increase from 2% to 4% in 2027. Buyers may ask suppliers to clarify: Whether the quotation includes Chinese consumption tax; Whether the product is classified as a battery pack or complete equipment; Which party is responsible for obtaining the export tax exemption or refund; Which party bears the cost if the refund cannot be obtained; Whether upstream tax has already been included in the price of the complete system or finished product; Whether a change in the tax rate will trigger price renegotiation. For sodium-ion, solid-state and fuel-cell companies, the temporary exemption may provide a cost advantage and could accelerate certification and commercialisation before the end of 2028. However, a 2% to 4% tax difference alone will not determine the winning technology. Product performance, manufacturing costs, production capacity and safety certification will remain more important. Overall, this is not a uniform export tax imposed by China on overseas markets. What overseas companies really need to examine is the form of the product they purchase, the supplier's eligibility for tax refunds, whether upstream tax has entered the cost of the final product, and whether these risks are clearly addressed in the contract.
A PV Plant Lasts 25 Years. Who Protects these years?
Recently, Typhoon Bavi has swept through many parts of China, bringing severe disasters to numerous regions. Summer is a period when extreme weather events such as thunderstorms and high temperatures occur frequently, posing serious threats to the electrical and fire safety of PV power plants. For renewable energy sites to withstand these challenges, not only must key components such as inverters deliver strong performance, but the quality of plant operation and management is equally important. Addressing O&M shortcomings and strengthening reliability throughout the entire life-cycle are not only essential capabilities for power plant owners, but have also become a new frontier for some system providers to expand their service scope and realize long-term value. Breaking traditional service boundaries and unlocking full lifecycle value “Everyone, take a close look here. This terminal connection has a loose contact issue, which can lead to abnormal temperature rise, overheating, and even fire hazards. The weeds underneath have also not been cleared in time and have accumulated together, making it very easy for a fire to spread.” Recently, during a dedicated fire safety training session for power generation group customers, a Sungrow engineer explained the situation in detail to the trainees. From late June to early July, addressing the fire risks faced by renewable energy sites during the high-temperature season, Sungrow organized multiple teams to provide frontline O&M personnel from renewable energy operators with systematic training on fire hazard inspections, equipment fault handling, emergency fire response, and other practical skills, helping to strengthen safety management capabilities at renewable energy sites. (A Sungrow engineer demonstrates fire safety skills to trainees at the power plant site.) This refined approach to post-delivery services creates a clear distinction from many equipment suppliers in the market, whose service scope often ends with equipment delivery and project grid connection. The author has noticed that currently, the follow-up work of renewable energy sites, including potential risk inspections, fire safety management, and emergency fault response, is mainly handled by the O&M teams of power generation companies. However, these teams often rely heavily on outsourced personnel, whose technical expertise varies significantly, potentially leaving various safety risks unaddressed. Unlike many system providers that regard equipment delivery as the end of their service journey, Sungrow has continuously strengthened its full lifecycle service philosophy over the years, treating equipment delivery as the starting point of service. The company builds long-term value partnerships across multiple stages, including system design, grid connection, and plant operation, creating sustainable value throughout the entire project lifecycle. Industry professionals believe that Sungrow’s approach is to position full lifecycle services as a core competitive advantage. At its essence, the company is reshaping partnerships from the perspective of preserving and enhancing the value of energy assets. Rather than limiting itself to supplying individual equipment, Sungrow provides long-term support throughout the entire lifecycle of power plant operation and management. It is worth noting that Sungrow’s global network of international branches, local service centers, and localized on-site engineering teams provide strong support for delivering full lifecycle services and rapidly addressing various electrical and system failures across renewable energy sites in different regions. Meanwhile, by continuously collecting customer feedback and product insights through post-delivery services, Sungrow applies these learnings to product iteration and optimization, creating a positive cycle of “customer service → R&D advancement.” “Through a regular fire safety training mechanism, we hope to help customers build their own capabilities in risk identification and equipment management, shifting from passive fault repair to proactive risk prevention, and better unlocking the full lifecycle value of power plants,” said Wei Hailong, General Manager of China Region, Engineering and Technical Service Center at Sungrow. Hardware-Level Safety: The Foundation for Long-Term Reliability If Sungrow’s “post-delivery services” add an additional layer of protection to the safety of power plants throughout their entire lifecycle, then the robust safety performance of the equipment itself serves as the fundamental cornerstone for long-term safe and reliable operation. Only through the coordinated combination of “hardware-level safety + comprehensive long-term services” can a fully integrated and sustainable safety protection system be built. Currently, competition in the PV industry continues to intensify, with price wars becoming a major strategy for some companies to capture market share. Industry insiders have revealed that some equipment manufacturers simplify configurations of key components, such as inverter fire-resistant enclosures, insulation components, and arc detection modules, in order to reduce production costs and lower product prices. Although such cost-reduced equipment may have lower initial procurement costs, PV power plants typically have an operating lifecycle of up to 25 years. Safety risks such as insulation failure and DC short circuits can accumulate over time. Once a fire occurs, power generation companies may face multiple cost pressures, including equipment damage, power generation losses caused by downtime, and fire safety rectification expenses. Sungrow, however, has chosen a completely different approach. In its view, safety is the foundation of all value creation—it is the relationship between zero and one. Once the safety baseline is compromised, all other benefits become impossible to achieve. Therefore, Sungrow has always prioritized intrinsic equipment safety as the top priority in product development, implementing fundamental safety protection through redundant, multi-layer, and comprehensive DC-side protection designs to eliminate potential risks at the hardware source. Developed for applications such as river basin projects and offshore PV scenarios, the SG465HX string inverter is equipped with an upgraded Intelligent Shutdown 2.0 system. It adopts a dual-redundant circuit-breaking design combining mechanical switches and electronic switches, together with multiple protection technologies, including a full-range temperature sensing array, millisecond-level DC arc detection, all-condition surge protection, and 24/7 insulation monitoring. These technologies enable the inverter to accurately identify hidden faults such as abnormal temperature rises caused by loose terminal connections and reverse-connected modules, while cutting off faulty circuits within milliseconds. The inverter is also equipped with a flame-retardant isolation compartment and an integrated aerosol fire suppression structure, preventing fire propagation from both heat conduction and ignition sources. (In a fire safety validation test, the Sungrow SG465HX inverter quickly activated over-temperature protection, while the reference inverter overheated and caught fire.) Meanwhile, Sungrow’s newly launched PowerMatrix matrix inverter, which has gained significant attention in the market, is also equipped with an industry-leading ten-layer DC-side safety protection architecture. Built on a PV-storage integrated native DC bus topology, it enables independent zone isolation of PV strings, energy storage units, and multiple grid connection points. Combined with Sungrow’s self-developed technologies, including excitation fuses, parallel arc detection warnings, and hierarchical insulation monitoring, the system provides all-weather, full-node, and comprehensive protection. When a DC fault occurs at any node, it can be independently isolated, preventing risks from spreading across modules in a chain reaction. This completely moves beyond the limitations of traditional equipment featuring “single-point protection and post-event remediation.” It is worth noting that when designing system safety solutions, Sungrow does not simply stack individual components. Instead, its safety architecture is developed and refined through tens of thousands of extreme-condition tests across diverse scenarios, including mountainous regions, deserts, river basins, and offshore environments. These rigorous validations cover harsh conditions such as sandstorm durability, full-load operation under high temperatures, fire simulation, and multiple fault scenarios, ultimately creating an active safety closed loop featuring “pre-event warning, millisecond-level disconnection, zone-based isolation, and self-extinguishing flame retardation.” Relying on the fundamental DC safety architecture of products such as the PowerMatrix matrix inverter and SG465HX, together with technical services throughout the entire lifecycle, Sungrow has built a safety ecosystem that integrates both software and hardware capabilities. By strengthening safety from both internal and external dimensions, the company helps customers address potential gaps in renewable energy site operation and management from multiple perspectives. Speaking of the series of fire safety training programs recently carried out by Sungrow, one detail is particularly worth highlighting. Before the training sessions, the technical team specifically conducted on-site visits to PV power plants located in mountainous and forest areas. Based on these visits, they identified four major high-frequency causes of fire incidents: weed accumulation, loose terminal connections, blocked heat dissipation, and rodent damage and corrosion. The team then developed scenario-based fire prevention O&M manuals, standardized inspection records, and other practical materials. “In addition, during the training sessions, our technical engineers not only explained fire safety knowledge and operational procedures, but also shared the existing risks and hidden hazards discovered during the preliminary site visits, while providing corresponding rectification recommendations,” said Wei Hailong. It is clear that Sungrow did not turn this round of training into a mere formality or a superficial activity. Instead, the company has truly implemented the training in practice, ensuring that participants gain real skills and practical capabilities. On one hand, Sungrow maintains strict hardware safety standards during product development to avoid long-term safety risks caused by short-term pursuit of profits. On the other hand, it extends services throughout the entire lifecycle and actively participates in customers’ power plant safety management. Sungrow’s long-standing leadership position in the global power electronics conversion sector demonstrates a clear principle: amid intensified price competition in the industry, long-term commitment is becoming the core path for PV equipment companies to achieve differentiated growth. Facing the evolution toward a new power system, the long-term safe and stable operation of PV power plants is the foundation for sustainable industry development. By combining intrinsic equipment safety as the foundation and full lifecycle services as the key approach, system providers and power generation companies can jointly build comprehensive safety systems for renewable energy sites. Balancing short-term construction costs with long-term operational value may become the mainstream direction for companies seeking to successfully navigate industry cycles.
Saudi Arabia Signs 6 GWh of Four-Hour Energy Storage Projects
An energy storage development that first came into market view as "SPPC securing a 6 GWh order in the Middle East" is now taking on a more complete shape as multiple participants disclose further information. On August 20, the Saudi Power Procurement Company (SPPC) signed energy storage service agreements with three project companies for the Haden, Al-Muwaih and Kahafah independent energy storage projects. Each project has a capacity of 500 MW/2,000 MWh, bringing the combined capacity to 1.5 GW/6 GWh. All three projects have a four-hour storage duration. Haden and Al-Muwaih are located in Makkah Province, while Kahafah is located in Ha'il Province. The projects will be developed under a build-own-operate (BOO) model. The energy storage service agreements have a term of 15 years from the respective commercial operation dates, with a combined disclosed value of SAR 3.25 billion. In terms of ownership, Saudi Energy holds an effective 35.1% interest in each project, while ACWA Power will hold 34.9% upon financial close. Public award information also identifies Al Sharif Contracting and Commercial Development as a consortium member, although its final ownership percentage has not yet been disclosed. Project Participants and the Boundaries of Their Responsibilities Under this structure, SPPC organizes the tender process and procures energy storage capacity and services from the project companies on a long-term basis. ACWA Power, Saudi Energy and Al Sharif participate in project development, while three special-purpose project companies are responsible for financing, construction, asset ownership, operation and long-term contractual performance. On August 25, Larsen & Toubro (L&T) announced that it had secured orders for three four-hour energy storage projects in the Middle East with a combined capacity of 6 GWh. The disclosed scope includes battery energy storage facilities, pooling substations, underground cabling and grid connections, with liquid-cooling technology to be adopted. Based on the number of projects, capacity, storage duration and engineering scope, the L&T order closely matches the three Saudi projects described above. The Haden project's inclusion of a 380 kV substation expansion and associated grid-connection works provides further support for this correspondence. However, the parties have not identified one another in their respective announcements. L&T has not disclosed the customer or project names, while SPPC, ACWA Power and Saudi Energy have not publicly identified L&T. The more accurate formulation is therefore that L&T's order is highly likely to correspond to the Haden, Al-Muwaih and Kahafah projects, although this remains a cross-assessment based on publicly available information rather than a relationship formally confirmed by both sides. L&T can be placed on the engineering execution side, but it remains unclear whether the company is responsible for the full EPC scope. The suppliers of the battery cells, BESS, power conversion systems and control platforms have also not been disclosed. The SAR 3.25 billion announced by Saudi Energy cannot be directly compared with L&T's "Major" order classification. The former reflects the value of the projects or energy storage service agreements, while the latter is an internal classification of the engineering orders secured by L&T. The two figures therefore cover different contractual boundaries. The core of this structure is not a one-off equipment purchase, but the continuous provision of services over 15 years. Under the BOO model, the project companies must assume long-term responsibility for system availability, capacity retention and operating performance. Project evaluation therefore extends beyond initial construction costs to performance across the full asset lifecycle. Why All the Projects Use Four-Hour Storage The three projects have a combined storage capacity of 6 GWh. Based on a four-hour storage duration, this corresponds exactly to an output capacity of 1.5 GW. Unlike short-duration storage systems primarily used for rapid frequency regulation, four-hour systems are better suited to intraday energy shifting. During the daytime, when solar generation is concentrated, the storage systems can absorb part of the electricity produced. When solar output declines in the evening while power demand remains high, they can continue discharging for several hours. This is directly related to changes in Saudi Arabia's power structure. As solar and wind capacity expands, the electricity system requires more flexible resources capable of bridging the evening supply-demand gap. Rising air-conditioning demand under high-temperature conditions further increases the need for capacity support during evening hours. The four-hour configuration is not unique to these three projects. It is becoming a standard design for Saudi Arabia's independent energy storage program. The country's first batch comprises four independent storage projects with a combined capacity of 2 GW/8 GWh, all based on the same 500 MW/2,000 MWh configuration. In addition to the three projects covered here, which total 6 GWh, the first batch includes the Al-Khushaybi project being developed by a consortium of ENGIE and Haji Abdullah Alireza. That project also has a capacity of 500 MW/2,000 MWh. SPPC's subsequent second batch follows the same design. It comprises six projects with a combined capacity of 3 GW/12 GWh, with each project again configured at 500 MW/2,000 MWh. Together, the two batches form an independent energy storage procurement pipeline of 5 GW/20 GWh. When multiple projects adopt the same power capacity, storage duration and broadly similar development model, Saudi Arabia's energy storage market is moving beyond individual project experimentation toward a standardized procurement framework that can be replicated at scale. The Middle East Market Opportunity Behind the 6 GWh Projects For the energy storage supply chain, the message from these projects extends beyond an additional 6 GWh of potential equipment demand. First, energy storage in the Middle East is moving away from projects attached to solar plants or off-grid applications and toward large-scale infrastructure that participates independently in power system operations. Long-term energy storage service agreements provide projects with stable revenue and create a foundation for project financing. Because developers must assume responsibility for system performance over the next 15 years, the cycle life, degradation performance and long-term service capabilities of equipment suppliers are becoming increasingly important. Second, the boundary between energy storage facilities and grid infrastructure is becoming increasingly integrated. L&T's disclosed scope covers not only the storage facilities but also pooling substations, underground cabling and grid-connection works. The Haden project also includes the expansion of a 380 kV substation. For projects at the scale of several GWh, the ability to complete high-voltage grid connection on schedule is becoming just as important as the energy storage system itself. The projects also show that conditions in the Middle East are raising the threshold for equipment suppliers seeking market entry. L&T has confirmed the use of a liquid-cooling solution, but liquid cooling represents only one component of the overall technical system. High temperatures, dust and prolonged operation under heavy loads will also test battery-cell degradation, system derating, safety protection, fire-protection design and capacity augmentation arrangements. Equipment suppliers competing for these projects face more than price competition: they must also demonstrate long-term warranty capabilities, an international project track record, bankability and local service capacity. The suppliers of the battery cells, energy storage systems, power conversion systems and control platforms for the three projects have not yet been disclosed. The contractual relationship between L&T and the development consortium also remains subject to formal confirmation. These will be the most important points to watch in the next stage. They will determine which companies ultimately receive orders associated with the 6 GWh projects and reveal how Saudi Arabia's large-scale energy storage developments balance technology, pricing and localization capabilities. From the signing of the first 8 GWh batch to the launch of the second 12 GWh batch, Saudi Arabia is incorporating four-hour energy storage into its long-term power system development framework. For the industry, the central question is no longer how many GWh any single company has secured. What matters is which companies can enter this long-term project structure and assume full responsibility—from equipment delivery and grid connection to operational performance over many years. Sources: 1. ACWA Power — Agreements for 6,000 MWh of Battery Storage in Saudi Arabia https://www.acwapower.com/en/media-center/latest-news/acwa-signs-agreements-for-6-000-mwh-of-battery-storage-in-saudi-arabia/ 2. Saudi Exchange — ACWA Power's Disclosure on the Storage Services Agreements https://www.saudiexchange.sa/wps/portal/saudiexchange/newsandreports/issuer-news/issuer-announcements/issuer-announcements-details/?anCat=1&anId=97727&cs=2082&locale=en 3. Saudi Exchange — Saudi Energy's Disclosure on the Haden BESS Project https://www.saudiexchange.sa/wps/portal/saudiexchange/newsandreports/issuer-news/issuer-announcements/issuer-announcements-details/?anCat=1&anId=97738&cs=5110&locale=en 4. L&T — Official Announcement on the 6 GWh Middle East BESS Order Publicly accessible report reproducing the announcement: https://www.nbmcw.com/news/energy-power/l-t-renewables-business-wins-major-order-for-battery-energy-storage-system-in-the-middle-east.html 5. Saudi Press Agency — SPPC's Second Group of 12,000 MWh Battery Energy Storage Projects https://www.spa.gov.sa/en/N2568317
LG Energy Solution Shifts North American Capacity Toward ESS
Recently, Reuters reported that LG Energy Solution (LGES) is shifting more of its North American battery manufacturing capacity toward energy storage system (ESS) batteries. Robert Lee, president of LG Energy Solution North America, said that as the construction of AI data centers drives rapid growth in electricity demand, energy storage is becoming an important growth area that the company had not previously anticipated. By the end of 2026, five of LG Energy Solution’s eight factories in North America are expected to be producing ESS batteries. This development can easily be summarized as "LG Energy Solution is shifting from EV batteries to energy storage." However, when considered in the context of LG's more than a decade of business development and its financial performance over the past two years, this interpretation is not accurate. LG is not entering the ESS market for the first time. Rather, against a backdrop of EV battery demand growing more slowly than previously expected, the company is further increasing the strategic importance of ESS and using its established North American manufacturing footprint to allocate more capacity to a market that is growing faster and undergoing changes in its customer structure. LG Energy Solution's ESS Business Is Not New LG Energy Solution's ESS business was not a temporary move. As early as the LG Chem era, the company had already begun developing its ESS business and established a presence in Europe, particularly Germany, through residential energy storage products such as the RESU series. Therefore, energy storage has always been part of LG Energy Solution's battery business and did not emerge as a "Plan B" in response to current changes in the EV market. What has actually changed is the position of ESS within the company’s overall business. Over the past decade, the primary growth driver of the global battery industry has centered on electric vehicles. As a result, LG Energy Solution invested heavily in nickel-based battery technologies such as high-nickel ternary batteries and built joint-venture factories in North America with automakers including General Motors, creating large-scale EV battery manufacturing capacity. However, as the growth of the North American EV market has slowed, some battery capacity built on the assumption of high growth has begun to face pressure in terms of utilization and order structure. At the same time, data centers, AI infrastructure, grid expansion, and renewable energy integration are driving growth in U.S. stationary energy storage demand, making ESS an important direction for LG Energy Solution to reallocate its North American manufacturing assets. Reuters, citing forecasts from Benchmark Mineral Intelligence, reported that North American demand for stationary batteries is expected to reach approximately 76 GWh in 2026 and increase to 125 GWh over the next five years. However, this increase will still not be sufficient to fully absorb the battery capacity previously built for the EV market. Therefore, LG Energy Solution's current adjustment is not about "abandoning EVs and starting to make ESS batteries." Instead, the company is gradually moving from a model of "EVs as the main business, with ESS continuing to develop" toward a model in which EVs and ESS develop in parallel, while a greater share of North American capacity is allocated to ESS. 2025 Financial Results Already Signaled This Shift In fact, LG Energy Solution's performance in 2025 had already reflected the increasing importance of its ESS business. In its full-year 2025 results released in January 2026, LG Energy Solution reported consolidated revenue of KRW 23.7 trillion, down 7.6% year on year, while operating profit reached KRW 1.3 trillion, up 133.9% year on year. In its 2026 business plan, the company explicitly stated that it aims to secure more than 90 GWh of new ESS battery orders in 2026 and increase global ESS battery production capacity to more than 60 GWh, with more than 80% of that capacity located in North America. More importantly, these figures are not merely targets that exist on paper. LG Energy Solution had already disclosed in the third quarter of 2025 that its ESS battery order backlog had reached approximately 120 GWh, while the company subsequently raised its target for new ESS orders in 2026 to more than 90 GWh. Entering 2026, this trend accelerated further. In its first-quarter results, LG Energy Solution said that its North American ESS battery production network was already largely established and that it planned to increase North American ESS production capacity to more than 50 GWh by the end of 2026. Why ESS Now Instead of Waiting for the EV Market to Recover? One important reason is that the energy storage market is being driven by factors that are fundamentally different from those driving the EV market. In the past, energy storage demand was primarily driven by renewable energy integration, peak shaving and grid flexibility. Today, AI data centers are emerging as a new growth driver. Large data centers require a stable and continuously increasing supply of electricity, which is not only driving investment in the U.S. power grid but also increasing demand for large-scale battery energy storage systems. For battery manufacturers such as LG Energy Solution, this means ESS is no longer simply a relatively mature but limited niche market. It is becoming more directly connected to U.S. power infrastructure investment, data center construction and the energy transition. At the same time, the requirements for ESS batteries are not exactly the same as those for EV batteries. Electric vehicles place greater emphasis on energy density and lightweight design, while stationary energy storage is less sensitive to size and weight. As a result, safety, cycle life and cost are often more important, which is also making LFP an increasingly mainstream technology route for large-scale energy storage. This is precisely one of the most important aspects of LG Energy Solution's current transition. From Nickel-Based Batteries to LFP, LG Needs to Close the Technology Gap for the Energy Storage Era LG Energy Solution's long-standing technological strengths have been concentrated in high-energy-density nickel-based batteries, while the large-scale ESS market is increasingly relying on LFP technology. Although LFP has lower energy density than nickel-based batteries, it is better suited to stationary energy storage in terms of cost, safety and cycle life. At the same time, the LFP materials, equipment and manufacturing supply chains have long been dominated by Chinese companies. This means that LG Energy Solution cannot expand its ESS business simply by switching customers or reallocating existing capacity. It also needs to build capabilities in LFP material systems, manufacturing processes, supply chains and large-scale production. Reuters also pointed out that transitioning from traditional nickel-based chemistries to LFP is far more complicated than simply adjusting a production line. LG Energy Solution has already begun this transition. In March 2026, Ultium Cells, the joint venture between LG Energy Solution and General Motors, announced that it was adjusting the production line at its Spring Hill plant in Tennessee to increase LFP battery production capacity for energy storage systems. On the customer side, LG Energy Solution announced in February that it had signed a 5 GWh ESS battery supply agreement with Hanwha Qcells USA. The products use LFP cells and will be manufactured at LG Energy Solution's Holland plant in Michigan for large-scale grid energy storage projects in the United States. North America Is Becoming the Core of LG Energy Solution's ESS Strategy LG Energy Solution's increased focus on ESS is particularly concentrated in North America, and this is not accidental. On the one hand, the United States is one of the fastest-growing large-scale energy storage markets in the world. On the other hand, domestic manufacturing policies, supply chain security requirements and concerns over dependence on China's battery supply chain are all encouraging battery manufacturers to establish localized production capacity in the United States. According to LG Energy Solution's plans, its global ESS production capacity will exceed 60 GWh in 2026, with more than 80% located in North America. The company has already established a production network including its Holland and Lansing plants in Michigan, the Ultium Cells plant in Tennessee, and NextStar Energy in Canada. The changes at the Lansing plant are particularly noteworthy. According to the latest Reuters report, the plant is already producing energy storage batteries and will eventually also supply batteries to Tesla, which itself is a major participant in the global large-scale energy storage market. LG Energy Solution and Tesla have previously signed a $4.3 billion energy storage battery supply agreement under which LG Energy Solution will produce LFP prismatic cells in the United States for Tesla’s Megapack 3 energy storage system. This further demonstrates how LG Energy Solution is using major customer orders to drive the deployment of its North American ESS manufacturing capacity. For LG Energy Solution, the rise of ESS is not about abandoning EV batteries, but about making better use of its existing manufacturing footprint while capturing a new wave of electricity demand. As AI data centers, grid modernization and renewable energy continue to drive demand for large-scale storage in North America, ESS is likely to play an increasingly important role in how global battery manufacturers allocate capacity, develop new chemistries and compete for customers. LG Energy Solution’s next challenge will be turning its growing North American ESS capacity into a lasting competitive advantage, particularly as it expands into LFP and competes with established Chinese battery manufacturers. If it succeeds, ESS could become more than a temporary outlet for underutilized EV capacity—it could become one of LG Energy Solution’s most important growth engines in North America.
Global Energy Storage Cell Shipments Surpass 460 GWh in H1 2026: Why the Rankings Diverge
InfoLink, SMM and TrendForce agree on the market's rapid growth, but diverge on company rankings and segment definitions. A key takeaway is that the three leading research institutions reached highly similar conclusions on the overall size of the same market, while showing systematic differences in company rankings and segment structures. This is essentially not a matter of data errors, but a reflection of the fact that the energy storage cell industry is entering a stage of "multiple statistical methodologies coexisting." In the first half of 2026, the global energy storage cell market continued its explosive growth. InfoLink Consulting, Shanghai Metals Market (SMM), and TrendForce EnergyTrend successively released their semi-annual data. The three institutions estimated global shipments at 467.84 GWh, approximately 486 GWh, and more than 460 GWh, respectively, with year-on-year growth remaining between 93% and 95%. While the three reports are highly consistent in their assessment of the overall market size, they show significant differences in company rankings, market concentration, and segment classifications. These differences do not necessarily mean that one is "right" and another is "wrong." Instead, they signal something more important: the statistical methodologies used to measure the energy storage cell industry are becoming increasingly complex and difficult to standardize. Consensus Is Emerging: The Market Remains Characterized by Both Rapid Growth and High Concentration From the perspective of overall market trends, the three institutions are highly aligned in their assessment of the industry's fundamentals—the global energy storage cell market remains in a period of rapid expansion. According to InfoLink, global shipments reached 467.84 GWh in H1, with a CR5 of 56.5% and a CR10 of 82.3%. TrendForce estimates that the market exceeded 460 GWh, with a CR3 of approximately 44% and a CR10 of approximately 84%. Although SMM did not fully disclose concentration data, it likewise confirmed that the market maintained strong growth. Despite differences in specific figures, one common conclusion is clear: the industry is entering a phase in which "scale expansion and increasing concentration" are occurring simultaneously. In terms of demand structure, overseas markets have become the core source of incremental growth. European residential storage entered a restocking cycle after the destocking period ended, while large-scale energy storage projects in the Middle East and North America saw concentrated deliveries. New demand also continued to emerge from India, Australia, and the Nordic markets. Against this backdrop, the focus of competition among companies is shifting from price toward delivery capabilities, global service capabilities, and supply chain stability. The Essence of the Ranking Divergence: The Fourth Place Onward Has Entered a "Narrow-Difference Competition Zone" In terms of company rankings, the three institutions show a high degree of consistency in the top three: CATL, Hithium, and EVE Energy remain the top three global suppliers. CATL ranks first in all three rankings, and TrendForce points out that its shipment volume has exceeded that of the second-ranked company by more than two times, with its lead remaining substantial. The real divergence begins from fourth place onward. BYD ranks fourth in some rankings and sixth in others, while CALB, Chuangneng New Energy, Great Power, and Envision/AESC-related entities also show fluctuations of one to two positions. Gotion High-Tech and Sunwoda enter or exit the Top 10 in some rankings. The key reason for these differences is not that the competitiveness of these companies has changed dramatically, but rather a more practical characteristic of the industry: the shipment gap among mid-tier companies has narrowed to the scale of a single large project. Whether a project is delivered before the statistical cutoff date, whether direct cell shipments or the system integration segment are included, and even whether shipments are recognized across different quarters can directly affect the half-year ranking. Therefore, fluctuations between fourth and tenth place are essentially the result of the combined effects of "delivery timing + statistical boundaries," rather than a fundamental change in the competitive landscape. Segment Divergence Is Even Greater: The Issue Is Not the Data, but "How the Market Is Divided" If differences in overall rankings can still be regarded as boundary-related fluctuations, then differences in market segmentation directly stem from the lack of a unified classification system. All three institutions confirm that utility-scale storage remains the absolute backbone of the market, but their classification methods differ significantly: • InfoLink: Utility-scale storage cells + small-scale storage cells • TrendForce: Utility-scale & C&I energy storage + residential storage • SMM: Grid-side + C&I + residential storage Under these systems, an important question emerges: InfoLink's "small-scale storage" cannot be directly equated with the "residential storage" categories used by TrendForce and SMM. This means that the same market may be divided, combined, or reclassified differently across different research institutions, making direct horizontal comparisons of segment data impossible. At the trend level, however, the three institutions still reach the same conclusion: utility-scale storage accounts for the vast majority of shipments, while residential and small-scale storage are becoming the fastest-growing segments. In the residential/small-scale storage market, the structural consensus is also clear, but the rankings are not consistent. All three institutions rank EVE Energy, Great Power, and REPT BATTERO among the top three global residential storage cell suppliers, with their combined market share generally exceeding 60%. However, the specific rankings differ. InfoLink and TrendForce swap the top position, while SMM's structure is closer to that of TrendForce. This points to an important fact: the competitive landscape of the residential storage market has become relatively stable, but there is still no unified statistical standard for determining who ranks first. The reasons mainly include differences in application definitions, whether communications and small C&I products are included, how overseas channel inventory is recognized, and whether cells are reclassified at the Pack stage. In other words, the core question in the residential storage market has shifted from "Who is leading?" to "How should the market boundary be defined?" Methodological Differences: Why Do the Three Institutions Reach Different Conclusions? From a methodological perspective, none of the three institutions relies solely on company disclosures. Instead, all adopt a hybrid approach combining industry research, modeling, and supply chain verification. InfoLink relies on industry interviews and model-based estimates, supplementing data for companies that do not disclose figures. SMM combines domestic supply chain data, operating rates, and tender information to develop its estimates. TrendForce, meanwhile, bases its analysis on a global supply chain database and conducts cross-regional modeling. The differences are mainly concentrated in five key areas: shipment recognition points, product scope definitions, company attribution methodologies, whether vertically integrated companies are double-counted, and deviations between model estimates and company disclosures. When these factors are combined, the same market can show an approximately 5% difference in total market size and one to three positions of fluctuation in company rankings across different institutions. Surpassing 1 TWh for the Full Year Has Become a Consensus, but the Pace Remains Uncertain Despite differences in statistical methodologies, the three institutions are highly aligned in their outlook for the full year: global energy storage cell shipments are expected to exceed 1 TWh for the first time in 2026. InfoLink forecasts approximately 1,026 GWh for the full year, while TrendForce expects approximately 1,012 GWh, both pointing toward the beginning of the "1,000-GWh era." However, it should be noted that H1 data cannot simply be extrapolated linearly to the full year. The second half of the year will still be affected by multiple factors, including overseas policies, project grid-connection schedules, inventory cycles, and the ramp-up of production capacity for large-format cells. Final Thoughts The real divergence is not in the rankings, but in "whether the industry can still be described using a single statistical standard." Overall, the greatest value of the three reports does not lie in providing a single definitive ranking, but in jointly revealing a change that is already underway: The energy storage cell industry has moved from a "growth stage with relatively standardized data" into a "complex stage characterized by multiple statistical systems." At this stage, ranking differences themselves are no longer the core issue. What truly matters is understanding the statistical boundaries behind each set of data. For the industry, what ultimately determines the competitive landscape will no longer be a single quarter's ranking, but global delivery capabilities, product iteration speed, and the ability to consistently fulfill commitments across different market systems. Source: InfoLink 🔗: https://www.infolink-group.com/energy-article/energy-storage-topic-global-battery-shipment-ranking-1h26 SMM 🔗: https://news.metal.com/newscontent/104039629-smm-h1-2026-ess-cell-shipment-rankings-stable-top%E2%80%90tier-landscape-vs-cut%E2%80%90throat-competition-among-second%E2%80%90tier-players EnergyTrend 🔗: https://www.energytrend.com/research/20260814-51941.html
S&P Global Energy Releases the 2026 Tier 1 Cleantech Companies List
S&P Global Energy recently released the 2026 Tier 1 Cleantech Companies list, covering five categories: PV modules, PV inverters, wind turbines, energy storage systems, and energy storage batteries. The 2026 list includes: • 15 PV module suppliers • 12 PV inverter suppliers • 10 wind turbine suppliers • 12 energy storage system (BESS) suppliers • 10 energy storage battery suppliers Compared with the inaugural 2025 edition, the 2026 assessment adds energy storage battery suppliers as a new category. Tier 1 is not a conventional corporate ranking or investment recommendation, but a supplier classification based on multiple criteria, including market performance, scale, financial strength, and sustainability. S&P Global Energy first identifies the top 30 companies by global shipments or installations in each technology category, and then conducts a further assessment. The 2026 assessment focuses primarily on four dimensions: Market performance: Global shipments, installations, and market influence Scale and globalization: Production capacity and global market coverage Financial strength: Financial performance and credit risk assessed using RiskGaugeTM Sustainability: Sustainability performance assessed using indicators such as the S&P Global Corporate Sustainability Assessment (CSA) The 2026 list also reflects a growing divergence across different clean energy equipment markets. The PV module market continues to face oversupply, pricing pressure, and declining profit margins, with industry consolidation continuing; meanwhile, the inverter market is being affected by factors including local content requirements, cybersecurity, and supply chain regulations. In contrast, the energy storage market remains in a period of rapid growth. With rising electricity demand, increasing power consumption from data centers, and growing requirements for grid flexibility, global battery energy storage deployment is expected to continue expanding rapidly. At the same time, the energy storage sector has attracted a large number of new entrants over the past two years, and the competitive landscape across the battery and BESS supply chains is also evolving. S&P Global Energy's inclusion of energy storage battery suppliers in the Tier 1 assessment is one of the key changes in the 2026 list compared with the previous year. It is important to note that S&P Global Energy explicitly states that Tier 1 is not a ranking from 1 to N , but rather identifies a group of suppliers that meet the required standards across multiple dimensions, including market performance, scale, financial strength, and sustainability. For developers, procurement teams, and other industry participants, this classification can primarily serve as a reference for supplier selection and market research .
Got Approval but Still Not Started Construction? SSE Upgrades Its Energy Storage Project from 2 Hour
On August 13, SSE Renewables announced that its revised proposal for the Mullafarry energy storage project in County Mayo, northern Ireland, had officially received planning approval. After the modification, the project scale will reach 80MW/320MWh . Interestingly, the project's power capacity has actually remained unchanged at 80MW . The real change is the storage capacity, which has been directly increased from the previous 160MWh to 320MWh , meaning the duration of the energy storage system has been extended from the original 2 hours to up to 4 hours . Before Construction Even Started, the Project Was Upgraded from 2 Hours to 4 Hours As early as April 2025, SSE had already obtained planning permission. At that time, the project was planned as an 80MW/160MWh system, capable of continuous charging and discharging for around 2 hours. SSE stated at the time that the stored electricity from the system would be equivalent to supplying more than 75,000 households with power for approximately two hours. Under the normal project development process, obtaining planning approval would typically be followed by moving ahead with construction. However, SSE did not proceed directly according to the original design. More than a year later, SSE decided to revise the project plan. In June 2026, the company submitted a new planning application to the local authority, adjusting the project to: 80MW/320MWh, with a maximum storage duration of 4 hours. The power capacity remained unchanged, but the energy capacity was doubled. Original plan: 80MW/160MWh, 2 hours New plan: 80MW/320MWh, 4 hours Why was the project changed to 4 hours? When SSE submitted the modification application in June this year, the company explained that the change was made partly in response to the latest developments in energy storage technology, and partly because electricity system operators are seeing increasing demand for reliable and flexible power reserve capacity. Previously, many storage projects were designed around a 2-hour duration. However, the current expectation is that storage systems should be able to store more electricity at once and provide support to the grid for a longer period. Therefore, the key purpose of this upgrade is not to make the energy storage system "discharge more powerfully", but to enable it to "discharge for a longer duration". Four Hours Matches Ireland's Current Energy Storage Policy Direction In recent years, Ireland has been continuously increasing the role of energy storage in its power system. In July 2024, the Irish government officially released the country's first Electricity Storage Policy Framework , formally integrating energy storage into future electricity system planning. Ireland aims to achieve 80% of electricity demand being supplied by renewable energy by 2030 . However, as wind and solar power continue to grow, having more renewable generation alone is not enough. How to store electricity when generation is high and release it when supply is insufficient has naturally become increasingly important. As a result, the role of energy storage has also grown. Interestingly, one point in the storage policy framework closely aligns with the upgrade of Mullafarry. In Action 6 of the policy framework, Ireland clearly proposed advancing the procurement of long-duration energy storage services. Relevant storage systems should be capable of continuously supplying electricity to the transmission system for 4 hours or more . Later, in October 2025, Ireland’s transmission system operator EirGrid further launched a consultation on long-duration energy storage procurement mechanisms, beginning to explore how storage systems of 4 hours and above could be formally incorporated into procurement arrangements. It should be noted that SSE did not state that the project modification was specifically intended to participate in this long-duration energy storage procurement mechanism. However, judging from the storage duration alone, the direct upgrade from 2 hours to 4 hours is clearly aligned with Ireland's current energy storage development direction. Moreover, Ireland is not simply issuing policy documents without further action. In June this year, Ireland further eased restrictions on energy storage. The Commission for Regulation of Utilities (CRU) adjusted transmission network charging rules for storage systems, aiming to make it easier for storage assets to participate in wholesale electricity markets. At the same time, the long-duration energy storage procurement framework continues to move forward. Looking at this series of developments, Ireland's current goal is clear: as wind and solar capacity continues to expand, the country not only needs energy storage to participate more actively in electricity markets, but also needs more storage resources capable of supporting the power system continuously for several hours. Against this background, SSE's decision to upgrade Mullafarry from a 2-hour project to a 4-hour project before construction even began becomes much less surprising. Located Next to SSE's Existing 104MW Power Station From a location perspective, Mullafarry is not an entirely independent new site. The project will be built on SSE-owned land, directly adjacent to the company's existing 104MW power station . If SSE ultimately decides to move forward with construction, the latest official announcement estimates that the construction period will take up to approximately two years . However, it is important to note that receiving planning approval does not mean the project will immediately enter the construction phase. SSE clearly stated in its announcement that whether Mullafarry will ultimately proceed to construction still depends on the company’s Final Investment Decision (FID) . The revised proposal has already received planning approval, but information regarding the final construction timeline, equipment suppliers, battery cell technology selection, and specific commissioning schedule has not yet been further disclosed by the company. Final Thoughts When SSE first obtained planning permission in 2025, Mullafarry was still an 80MW/160MWh, 2-hour energy storage project . By 2026, before the project had even officially started construction, SSE had already redesigned the system and increased the storage capacity directly from 160MWh to 320MWh. Moreover, Mullafarry is not the only project undergoing this type of adjustment. In Sweden, the Vaggeryd project was originally approved with a storage capacity of 200MWh . Ingrid later submitted a new permit application, doubling the capacity to 400MWh . The revised project scale became 100MW/400MWh , corresponding to a 4-hour energy storage system . In Northern Ireland, the UK, ABO Energy is also redesigning an already approved 140MW, 2-hour Coolkeeragh energy storage project into a 140MW, 4-hour system . One project may simply be an individual case. However, when similar adjustments begin appearing in Ireland, Sweden, and Northern Ireland , this trend deserves closer attention. In the past, 2-hour energy storage systems were a common configuration for many large-scale projects. But now, project developers are clearly reconsidering a fundamental question: For future energy storage projects, what duration will actually be the most suitable?
€59 Million! Slovenia Steps Up Energy Storage Support
The European energy storage market has welcomed another new national-level support scheme. Recently, the European Commission formally approved a €59 million state aid scheme in Slovenia to support the construction of energy storage systems. According to the plan submitted by Slovenia to the European Commission, the funding is intended to drive the addition of at least 370MWh of local energy storage capacity, improve power system flexibility, and support the integration of more renewable energy into the grid. €59 Million to Support at Least 370MWh of Energy Storage According to information released by the European Commission, the €59 million in funding will be provided by the EU Just Transition Fund and the Modernisation Fund. It should be noted that the 370 MWh does not refer to a single energy storage project that has already been confirmed for construction. Rather, it is the minimum additional storage capacity that the overall state aid scheme aims to promote. At present, the European Commission has not disclosed information such as the number of specific projects, construction locations, the power capacity of individual projects, storage duration, or equipment suppliers. Therefore, more precisely, what has been approved is an energy storage support mechanism. Which projects will ultimately receive funding and in what form they will be implemented will depend on Slovenia’s subsequent release of application, selection, and implementation rules. Small Slovenia Has Already Begun Deploying Energy Storage Slovenia is located in Central Europe, with a population of approximately 2.13 million and a land area of around 20,300 square kilometres. It is a relatively small electricity market within the European Union. However, the country did not start late in terms of power system digitalisation and energy storage applications. Slovenia’s electricity mix is mainly composed of nuclear power, hydropower, and thermal power. According to data released by the local transmission system operator ELES, in 2024, the Krško Nuclear Power Plant and hydropower plants together contributed more than three-quarters of Slovenia’s electricity. As installed capacity of solar power and other renewable energy sources increases, demand for peak regulation, frequency regulation, and short-term supply-demand balancing in the power system is also continuing to rise. Before the approval of this €59 million state aid scheme, Slovenia had already implemented several energy storage projects. Therefore, the €59 million aid scheme approved by the European Commission is not Slovenia’s first deployment of energy storage. Rather, it is intended to promote the further scaling-up of local battery energy storage on the basis of existing demonstration projects and market experience. The following are some examples of energy storage projects in Slovenia. For a country such as Slovenia, whose electricity market is relatively limited in size, the target of adding at least 370 MWh of energy storage capacity is by no means small. As the funding application and project selection mechanisms are gradually implemented, Slovenia is also expected to become a new growth market worth watching in the Central and Eastern European energy storage sector.
U.S. Utility Launches 800MW Energy Storage Procurement in One Go
Another major energy storage procurement round is underway in the United States. Recently, Appalachian Power (APCo) officially launched two energy storage solicitations, seeking to procure a combined up to approximately 800MW of energy storage resources . However, this 800MW does not represent a single 800 MW standalone storage project, nor does it simply mean that APCo is purchasing 800MW of storage power plants all at once. According to the latest information published on its official website, this procurement has actually been divided into two parts: Up to 500MW of energy storage through a PSA (Purchase and Sale Agreement) Up to 300MW of energy storage through a CPA (Capacity Purchase Agreement) The 500MW PSA explicitly accepts both new-build projects and existing energy storage facilities, while the 300MW CPA is open to eligible energy storage resources in the PJM region that meet the relevant capacity qualification requirements. The bid deadline for both solicitations is September 30, 2026 . What Appalachian Power is doing this time is not simply "buying energy storage," but simultaneously testing two different energy storage procurement models. 500MW to Buy Assets, 300MW to Buy Capacity Let's first look at the 500MW portion. Appalachian Power plans to procure up to 500MW of energy storage resources through one or more PSAs. Such agreements typically involve the acquisition of project assets, with the core structure being the purchase of 100% of the equity interests in a project company . Both new-build projects and existing energy storage facilities are eligible to participate. Therefore, the 500MW portion is closer to a model of "buying projects and assets." The other 300MW is completely different. This portion uses a Capacity Purchase Agreement , meaning APCo does not necessarily need to acquire the storage facility itself. Instead, it obtains the capacity that the energy storage project can provide through a contractual arrangement. Therefore, from a commercial-model perspective, this 800MW procurement is actually divided into two different routes: one involves acquiring the energy storage asset itself , while the other involves purchasing the capacity provided by the energy storage resource . For a utility, directly owning an energy storage asset versus purchasing storage capacity involves different levels of investment, asset risk, operational responsibility, and cost recovery. And Virginia's latest policy framework specifically requires utilities to evaluate both approaches. Why Procure Through "Both Models"? According to the latest Virginia Code , relevant electric utilities are required to use a competitive procurement process for energy storage. More importantly, the law explicitly requires utilities, during the procurement process, to solicit both proposals for purchasing energy storage capacity and proposals for purchasing the energy storage facilities themselves . Utilities must then compare different proposals based on factors including cost, risk allocation, asset ownership, and impacts on customers . Therefore, the 500MW PSA + 300MW CPA structure actually corresponds to two different asset and commercial models. One asks, Who will own the storage project?" The other asks, "If I do not own the project, can I purchase the capacity it provides?" Energy storage is increasingly being treated like a conventional power resource and is being incorporated into a more mature utility procurement framework. 780MW of Short-Duration Storage, Followed by Another 520MW of Long-Duration Storage Under Virginia's latest energy storage policy, Appalachian Power, as a Phase I Utility, will need to further expand its energy storage resources. ▍ The first category is short-duration energy storage By December 31, 2040 , the utility must seek the necessary approval from the SCC to construct, acquire, or procure 780MW of short-duration energy storage capacity . Under the regulatory definition, short-duration storage refers to energy storage resources with a duration of less than 10 hours at rated power . ▍ The second category is long-duration energy storage By the end of 2045 , the utility must seek the necessary approval from the SCC to construct, acquire, or procure 520MW of long-duration energy storage capacity . Half of this capacity must have the relevant regulatory application submitted by the end of 2035 . The 520MW is further divided. Half of the storage capacity must have a duration of 10–24 hours , while the other half must have a duration of more than 24 hours . In other words, based solely on the targets explicitly set out in the current legislation, the short-duration and long-duration energy storage requirements applicable to Appalachian Power already add up to 1.3GW . If the long-duration storage targets are formally implemented, Appalachian Power will need to move beyond conventional 2-hour and 4-hour storage , extending its procurement requirements to 10–24-hour and even more-than-24-hour long-duration storage . Conclusion Some may wonder: Virginia requires Appalachian Power to advance 780MW of short-duration energy storage resources by the end of 2040 , and the utility has now launched solicitations totaling roughly 800 MW. Does that mean the target is essentially being completed in a single procurement round? Not exactly. The roughly 800MW figure is simply the combined target capacity currently announced under the two RFPs. The final amount of projects selected and the total MW ultimately contracted will depend on the bid results and subsequent regulatory approvals. At the same time, 800MW refers only to power capacity . The final MWh capacity of each project, its storage duration, and how much of it ultimately qualifies toward Virginia's short-duration energy storage target will depend on the specific project proposals and subsequent regulatory determinations. The questions facing large U.S. utilities are now moving one step further. Who should own an energy storage asset? Should the utility purchase and own it directly, or should it purchase only the capacity? How should the costs and risks of different models be compared? And for storage lasting more than 10 hours, or even more than 24 hours, how should these resources be procured? This solicitation has put these questions squarely on the table. Energy storage procurement by U.S. utilities is gradually moving beyond simply "building a batch of storage" and toward a broader power-resource procurement framework centered on asset ownership, capacity value, and long-duration storage capabilities . 🔗 Full RFP documents: https://energyplanet.global/post/84?v=20260818-nuxt-og-v1
NVIDIA Updates 800VDC White Paper: From Technical Validation to Execution
The rapid expansion of AI data centers is driving computing infrastructure beyond chips, servers, and networks, further into the power system. On August 11, NVIDIA officially released Version 2 of its white paper, " 800 VDC Architecture: Industry Alignment & Execution.“ The first edition, released in October 2025, mainly demonstrated the technical necessity and feasibility of adopting 800V high-voltage DC power supply in AI data centers. This update focuses further on system architecture, equipment interfaces, deployment methods, safety protection, validation systems, and industry collaboration. The white paper clearly states that work related to 800VDC has moved from "concept evaluation" to "coordinated execution." Over the next 12 months, the industry will focus on equipment development, system performance validation, pilot deployment, and standards and regulatory work to accelerate the development of 800VDC solutions that can be deployed in practice. AI Racks Are Moving Toward Megawatt-Level Power The growing attention to 800VDC architecture is first related to the rapid increase in AI rack power. As the scale of large language models expands, more and more GPUs need to be connected through NVLink to form large-scale computing domains. To reduce the computing cost and energy consumption of each token, more GPUs need to be deployed within a limited space, driving single-rack power from several hundred kilowatts gradually toward the megawatt level. According to the rack power roadmap disclosed in the white paper, Gen 1 power racks support up to approximately 145kW; the Gen 2 architecture for Vera Rubin NVL72 increases single-rack power capability to approximately 330kW; and Gen 3 will adopt fully liquid-cooled power modules, busbars, and connectors, with each rack position supporting up to approximately 570kW. Going further, NVIDIA plans to transition to a native 800VDC rack architecture in Gen 4, providing a more scalable power supply approach for computing racks approaching the megawatt level. At present, NVIDIA's existing and near-term computing systems will still convert 800VDC to 54VDC inside the rack to remain compatible with mature power architectures. However, as rack power continues to increase, the current required for low-voltage power delivery, as well as copper, connectors, and thermal management space, will all increase significantly. Compared with 54VDC, 800VDC can reduce current when delivering the same amount of power, reduce the space occupied by the power supply system, and eliminate some power conversion stages. Therefore, NVIDIA regards it as an important technology route for the continued expansion of next-generation high-density AI racks. 800VDC Will Not Immediately Replace Existing AC Systems The white paper also emphasizes that 800VDC is not intended to immediately replace existing 415V or 480V AC power supply systems, but rather to serve as an additional deployment option that will coexist with AC architectures over the long term. Currently, a large number of existing and under-construction data centers still use mature AC distribution systems. If 800VDC can only be applied to newly built data centers, the speed of technology adoption will be limited, and it could also result in wasted investments in existing land, power connections, and distribution equipment. Therefore, NVIDIA proposes several optional deployment approaches in the white paper. Operators can choose to introduce 800VDC at the rack level, cluster level, or data hall level according to existing facility conditions, construction schedules, computing density, and investment plans, without having to upgrade the system step by step in a fixed sequence. Three 800VDC Deployment Architectures ▍ Option A: Rack-Level Power Rack Option A involves configuring a dedicated Power Rack next to the computing racks. The existing data center continues to receive power through a 415V to 480V AC system, while the Power Rack performs AC-to-800VDC conversion near the racks and supplies power to adjacent computing racks through standardized DC interfaces. The initial Power Rack has a capacity of approximately 660kW and can supply power to one or two computing racks. This approach can make use of existing AC infrastructure without requiring large-scale modifications to the upstream electrical room, making it suitable for early deployment of 800VDC computing equipment in existing data centers, test facilities, and laboratories. According to the timeline disclosed in the white paper, the Power Rack is planned to enter production in the third quarter of 2026, making it the 800VDC solution currently closest to practical deployment. However, the Power Rack requires additional data center space and also needs to accommodate a relatively large number of AC input cables. As computing scale expands, the number of power racks and their space requirements may become limiting factors for further expansion. ▍ Option B: Cluster-Level Power Center Option B concentrates rectification equipment at the end of a row of racks or a computing cluster, forming a unified DC Power Center. Each Power Center can provide up to approximately 2MW of output capacity, which is then distributed to multiple computing racks through 800VDC overhead busbars, tap boxes, or remote distribution panels. Compared with the rack-level Power Rack, this solution reduces the number of power supply devices and power cables located next to computing racks. It can also selectively provide 800VDC to high-density computing clusters without changing the upstream AC distribution room. According to the white paper, Option B is expected to be deployed as early as the third quarter of 2027. At present, multiple equipment manufacturers are developing and certifying 800VDC rectifiers, DC busbars, tap boxes, connectors, and protection devices. ▍ Option C: Data Hall-Level DC Power Block Option C is designed for future ultra-high-density AI factories, further concentrating power conversion and distribution at the data hall level. This architecture uses an approximately 4.8MW DC Power Block as a standardized power unit, supplying 800VDC power to the entire data hall through high-capacity DC switchgear and busbars. Four scalable units can form an approximately 20MW standardized deployment unit, which can then be replicated across a campus to support AI factories ranging from hundreds of megawatts to gigawatt scale. The DC Power Block can also adopt a modular and outdoor containerized design, allowing it to be assembled and tested at the factory before being transported to the project site, thereby reducing on-site construction work, equipment room footprint, and commissioning complexity. In the longer-term architecture, NVIDIA hopes to directly convert the 34.5kV medium-voltage AC commonly used in data center power distribution into 800VDC, further reducing intermediate low-voltage conversion stages. In the future, a single power block may scale to 10MW or more, while the next-generation solid-state transformer technology roadmap points toward around 2029. However, the white paper also points out that most commercially available solid-state transformers currently mainly target approximately 15kV inputs. To adapt to 34.5kV data center distribution systems, issues including insulation coordination, fault protection, thermal management, and grid connection still need to be addressed. Therefore, this part remains a medium- to long-term development direction. Energy Storage Enters Different Layers of AI Data Centers In this white paper, energy storage not only serves the traditional backup power function, but is also incorporated into rack-level load management, data center power regulation, and DC microgrid architectures. ▍ First is short-duration energy storage at the rack level AI computing loads are characterized by rapid changes and a high degree of synchronization. When large numbers of GPUs start simultaneously or adjust computing tasks, rack power may change significantly over a short period of time. The white paper proposes that small-capacity, fast-response energy storage devices, such as electrolytic capacitors, can be deployed inside or near computing racks to reduce instantaneous power peaks, smooth loads, and control the rate of power changes. In the initial Vera Rubin Power Rack design, each power module is also equipped with 1,200J of energy storage to improve the AC input current under dynamic loads. The Power Rack can also optionally be equipped with a BBU consisting of four 20kW modules, providing a total of 80kW of power for approximately 60 seconds to provide short-duration power support for the rack. ▍ Second is large-scale battery energy storage systems at the data center level In the data hall-level DC Power Block architecture, energy storage, DC UPS systems, renewable energy, and behind-the-meter generation facilities can be integrated with the 800VDC system to further form a DC microgrid. Since batteries themselves output DC power, directly connecting them to the DC bus has the potential to reduce repeated AC-DC conversion and synchronization stages. In the future, large-scale BESS can undertake load smoothing, grid interconnection support, on-site generation coordination, and enhanced power resilience. However, the white paper does not disclose the specific capacity, storage duration, battery technology route, or suppliers for large-scale energy storage, nor does it announce any specific energy storage procurement plans. What can currently be confirmed is that energy storage has been incorporated into NVIDIA's future AI factory power architecture, while the configuration of specific projects will still need to be further determined according to data center and grid conditions. Safety Protection and Certification Remain Key to Deployment Compared with mature AC systems, 800VDC has different technical requirements for fault protection. AC current has periodic zero-crossing points, making arc interruption relatively easier; DC current has no natural zero-crossing point, meaning that arcs may persist. Therefore, 800VDC systems need to place greater emphasis on fault current limitation, DC arc detection, grounding methods, insulation monitoring, connector interlocking, and rapid fault isolation. The white paper lists several grounding options, including high-resistance midpoint grounding, high-resistance circuit grounding, floating grounding, and direct grounding. However, no single grounding method has yet been determined, and system-level evaluation is still required based on personnel safety, fault detection, equipment supply, and operational continuity. In terms of protection equipment, molded-case circuit breakers with more mature supply chains and certification systems may be adopted first in the short term. In the long term, solid-state circuit breakers can interrupt faults at the sub-millisecond level, reducing peak fault current and arc energy, and are therefore regarded as important protection devices for high-density 800VDC systems. NVIDIA is currently focusing on two types of products: 125A air-cooled solid-state circuit breakers and 1,250A solid-state circuit breakers, targeting rack-level internal power modules and future native 800VDC rack interfaces, respectively. At the same time, NVIDIA is working with cloud service providers, equipment companies, and organizations such as UL Solutions to advance requirements for power quality, dynamic response, grounding protection, equipment certification, and system stability, while coordinating with standards systems including UL, NFPA, IEEE, and IEC. From Architectural Consensus to Industry Execution Compared with the first edition of the white paper, the most important change in this update is that the focus of the 800VDC discussion has shifted from "why it is needed” to “how to deploy it." At present, the relevant architectures are gradually converging toward several major forms at the rack, cluster, and data hall levels, allowing equipment companies to develop products around relatively standardized power levels, connection interfaces, busbar systems, and protection requirements. Over the next 12 months, the industry will continue to establish system-level performance requirements and validate the system from medium-voltage AC input all the way to the GPU chip side. Through hardware testing, system integration, and digital simulation, the industry will evaluate the compatibility, stability, and reliability of equipment from different manufacturers. At the same time, pilot deployment, equipment certification, installation and commissioning, and operation and maintenance standards will also be advanced simultaneously. It should be noted that some of the timelines and products mentioned in the white paper are still part of the roadmap and do not mean that commercial deployment has already been completed. However, from the overall direction, 800VDC is no longer merely a conceptual architecture for AI data centers, but is beginning to enter the stages of equipment development, system validation, and industry collaboration. As AI racks move toward higher power density, the data center power system will gradually shift from a traditional supporting facility to a core infrastructure component that affects computing scale, construction speed, and operational efficiency. The changes brought by 800VDC will also extend to multiple areas, including rectifiers, DC busbars, connectors, circuit breakers, solid-state transformers, energy storage, and energy management systems. Future AI data centers will need not only larger battery capacity, but also faster power response, DC-side integration capabilities, fault current control, and the ability to operate in coordination with computing loads and on-site power sources. From this perspective, NVIDIA's latest white paper is not only an update on 800V power supply technology, but also an execution roadmap for the power infrastructure of next-generation AI factories. 《800 VDC Architecture: Industry Alignment & Execution》link
Reuters: U.S. reportedly preparing ban on Chinese inverters
According to an exclusive report from Reuters, the Trump administration is currently drafting a secret proposal to ban imports of foreign-made inverters. As the “brain” connecting solar projects, energy storage systems, and the national grid, inverters have once again become a focal point at the intersection of energy technology and geopolitics. Sources familiar with the matter revealed that the proposed restriction, led by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC), would directly target “new inverter models entering the U.S. market” and is highly likely to be formally introduced within this year. This move is not seen as isolated. In May this year, the European Commission already took similar action by banning Chinese-made inverters from participating in certain publicly funded energy projects. It is difficult not to associate Europe’s aggressive stance with a potential acceleration of similar measures being drafted in the United States. Policymakers and some lawmakers in the U.S. argue that heavy reliance on Chinese inverters could pose potential risks to grid security and supply chain resilience. Some security experts have even claimed that, during inspections of certain Chinese equipment, unknown communication devices not disclosed in product documentation were discovered. Although the proposed ban still faces uncertainty and may be revised or shelved, the momentum is already building. Under the U.S. Fiscal Year 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the Department of Defense has already been prohibited from procuring solar and inverter equipment from Chinese entities. In addition, previous FCC restrictions on foreign drones and routers, which operate under a waiver-based approval system, have seen no successful breakthroughs by Chinese companies so far. This suggests that once the inverter ban is implemented, new Chinese products could face near-total barriers to entry into the U.S. market. The implications of this policy shift for the global clean energy market are significant. As the world’s largest inverter manufacturing base, Chinese companies led by Sungrow and Huawei have rapidly gained market share in Western markets in recent years, driven by strong cost competitiveness. This momentum is now expected to face serious resistance in North America and Europe. Beyond the United States, Europe is also preparing further measures. The EU is reportedly planning to update its Cybersecurity Act to establish a risk-based supplier classification framework, which could potentially place certain Chinese inverter suppliers on future blacklist categories. The alignment of U.S. and EU approaches reflects an unprecedented synchronization in the “de-risking” and “de-Chinaization” of the clean energy sector. In response, the Chinese Embassy in the United States strongly opposed the move, rejecting the politicization of national security and the unfair suppression of Chinese companies, and called on the U.S. to provide a fair and non-discriminatory business environment. Against a tightening policy landscape, global renewable energy companies expanding overseas will inevitably face an increasingly uncertain operating environment. For more details and updates, please refer to the original Reuters report.
Risen Energy's H1 2026: Energy Storage Gains Momentum as HJT Moves Toward Scale
In the first half of 2026, Risen Energy generated revenue of RMB 4.021 billion, down 45.97% year on year. Net loss attributable to shareholders of the parent company reached RMB 820 million, while net loss excluding non-recurring gains and losses amounted to RMB 877 million. However, a closer look at its business segments and quarterly performance reveals several positive changes worth noting. Energy storage-related revenue grows by more than 40% The most visible area of growth in Risen Energy's interim report came from its energy storage systems and related businesses. In the first half of 2026, the company's "energy storage systems, lighting products and auxiliary photovoltaic products" segment generated revenue of RMB 674 million, up 41.63% year on year. Its operating costs were approximately RMB 441 million, increasing by only 13.27%. Revenue grew by more than 40%, while costs rose by just 13.27%. As revenue outpaced costs, the segment's gross margin improved accordingly. During the period, the segment recorded a gross margin of 34.57%, an increase of 16.38 percentage points from a year earlier. Based on the revenue and cost figures disclosed in the interim report, the segment generated approximately RMB 233 million in gross profit, compared with only about RMB 86.56 million in the same period last year—an increase of roughly 169%. In other words, while revenue increased by 41.63%, gross profit grew by approximately 169%. At the same time, the segment's share of Risen Energy’s total revenue increased from 6.39% in the first half of 2025 to 16.76% in the first half of 2026. Many businesses appear to be growing rapidly, but higher revenue does not necessarily translate into higher gross profit. The change in Risen Energy's energy storage-related business is different: not only has the business expanded, but it is also retaining significantly more gross profit. In terms of its product portfolio, Risen Energy's controlled subsidiary Ningbo SYL has established a product system covering battery management systems (BMS), power conversion systems (PCS), energy management systems (EMS), DC-side integration and medium-voltage integration. Its products cover utility-scale, commercial and industrial, and residential energy storage applications, including the eTron utility-scale energy storage system, the eFlex C&I all-in-one system and the RisenStack residential energy storage series. These products are no longer confined to a product catalogue. By the end of the reporting period, the company's energy storage business had delivered more than 900 projects worldwide, including several utility-scale projects exceeding 100 MW. Its markets now cover Europe, the Americas, Asia-Pacific and Africa. In the past, these products, projects and overseas markets were mainly evidence of business expansion. In this interim report, they are beginning to translate more clearly into revenue and gross profit. Q2 gross margin recovers to 8.15%, with gross profit nearly doubling quarter on quarter In addition to the growth of its energy storage business, Risen Energy's second-quarter performance is also worth examining separately. Based on calculations using data from the interim report and the first-quarter report: In the first quarter of 2026, Risen Energy generated revenue of approximately RMB 2.702 billion, with an overall gross margin of around 2.02%, corresponding to gross profit of about RMB 55 million. In the second quarter, revenue declined to approximately RMB 1.319 billion—less than half the first-quarter level—but the overall gross margin recovered to around 8.15%, corresponding to gross profit of approximately RMB 108 million. This creates a clear contrast: second-quarter revenue was roughly half that of the first quarter, yet the gross profit generated was nearly twice as high. So where did the losses come from? In the first half of 2026, Risen Energy's financial expenses reached RMB 300 million, up 88.39% year on year. This included foreign-exchange losses of approximately RMB 88.07 million, compared with foreign-exchange gains of around RMB 119 million in the same period of 2025. The shift from a gain to a loss created an adverse year-on-year change of approximately RMB 207 million in foreign-exchange gains and losses, directly weighing on profitability. A simple calculation based on profit before tax helps illustrate the impact. In the first half of 2026, Risen Energy recorded a pre-tax loss of approximately RMB 949 million. Adding back the foreign-exchange loss results in an adjusted loss of around RMB 861 million. In the same period of 2025, the company recorded a pre-tax loss of approximately RMB 854 million. Excluding the foreign-exchange gain results in an adjusted loss of around RMB 973 million. Comparing the two figures, the adjusted loss narrowed by approximately RMB 112 million. This calculation is intended only to illustrate the effect of foreign-exchange gains and losses on changes in profitability; it is not an adjusted performance measure disclosed by the company. In addition, revenue from solar cells and modules reached RMB 2.087 billion, down 45.15% year on year. Revenue from solar power plant EPC and project transfers fell 58.51% to RMB 1.096 billion, while revenue from electricity sales by PV power plants declined 66.69% to approximately RMB 96.66 million. Revenue declined across all three traditional PV-related business segments. Winning a 1 GW Datang tender puts HJT closer to a volume-growth window According to the interim report, Risen Energy's heterojunction cell conversion efficiency has exceeded 27%, while its HJT module conversion efficiency has surpassed 24.70%. Through production-process optimization and continued improvements in core technologies, the company has reduced the non-silicon manufacturing cost of its HJT cells to RMB 0.15/W. As of the first quarter of 2026, the mass-production output of Risen Energy's Hyper-ion Pro modules had reached more than 740 W, while the average cell efficiency of its best-performing production batches reached 26.4%. Cumulative shipments of the series have exceeded 12 GW, covering more than 80 countries and regions worldwide. Tender results published in July showed that Risen Energy had successfully secured a lot under China Datang Corporation's 2026–2027 framework procurement for N-type HJT modules, with an estimated procurement volume of 1 GW. In the previously published candidate announcement, Risen Energy was ranked as the first-choice bidder. In the second half of 2026, Risen Energy also plans to advance the commissioning of its next-generation capacity, including a 15 GW HJT cell and 15 GW module project in Ninghai, Zhejiang, as well as a 4 GW cell and 6 GW module project in Jintan, Jiangsu. Taken together, Risen Energy's HJT business is developing a relatively clear path toward greater scale: technological efficiency and cost reductions at the front end, validation through a state-owned enterprise procurement programme and global customers in the middle, and new manufacturing capacity prepared to support future demand. As these projects begin operations and gradually ramp up production, the company’s accumulated technological and market advantages in HJT may increasingly translate into larger shipment volumes and financial contributions. The photovoltaic industry remains in an adjustment period, and the operating pressure facing Risen Energy has not been fully resolved. A broader business recovery will still require time. For Risen Energy, however, the real "gear shift" is not simply about rebuilding the scale of its existing businesses. It is about allowing energy storage and HJT to take on a larger share of the company’s future growth. That change is already visible in the interim report. The next question is whether it can continue to translate into shipments and profits.
Sunrun Packs AI Compute Into Homes: A New Monetization Model for Residential Storage Is Here
On July 8, Sunrun announced the launch of a distributed AI compute pilot program: deploying compute nodes in homes that have already installed Sunrun solar and battery systems, which are then coordinated by Sunrun to sell the AI inference capacity provided by these nodes to enterprise-level compute buyers, while participating households receive corresponding compensation. Sunrun currently possesses over 1.1 million customers, which constitutes the potential deployment foundation for distributed compute nodes. For Sunrun, this pilot is not merely about adding a computing device to a home, but rather an attempt to further transform the solar, battery, intelligent energy management systems, and service networks that have already entered residences into dispatchable computing infrastructure. What deserves even more attention is that residential solar-plus-storage is no longer just power generation and backup equipment, but is beginning to become an energy gateway, a compute gateway, and a flexibility asset gateway in the AI era. 01 The Bottleneck of AI Data Centers Is Shifting From "Whether Chips Exist" to "Where Power Is Available" Over the past few years, the competition in AI infrastructure has primarily revolved around GPUs, servers, models, and data centers. However, as compute demand continues to grow, more and more projects are starting to get stuck on more fundamental, underlying issues, such as power interconnection, grid connection cycles, transmission capacity, land, cooling, and local permitting. Traditional data centers adopt a centralized construction logic: first finding land, then building server rooms, configuring power supply and cooling systems, and finally completing grid interconnection. This model is suitable for large-scale training and high-density compute clusters, but its construction cycle is long, power demand is highly concentrated, and it easily further exacerbates grid stress in localized regions. Sunrun is tapping not into AI training, but AI inference. This is crucial, as the infrastructure requirements for the two are not entirely identical. Training typically requires large-scale, tightly synchronized computing clusters, where centralized data centers hold a distinct advantage; inference workloads, conversely, are relatively modular, can be geographically distributed, and attach greater importance to latency and proximity to end-users. Sunrun cited a McKinsey projection in its announcement stating that demand for AI inference is growing at a compound annual rate of approximately 35%, and could surpass training around 2030 to account for more than half of the AI compute workload. Therefore, what Sunrun sees is precisely this structural misalignment: on one hand, AI enterprises are scrambling for more inference compute that can be rapidly deployed and located close to users; on the other hand, a massive number of American households have already installed solar, batteries, and smart energy devices, and the value of this distributed energy infrastructure has not yet been fully unlocked. By connecting the two, Sunrun creates a new opportunity for residential storage. 02 The Value of Residential Storage No Longer Comes Only From Peak-Valley Price Differentials and Backup Power In the past, the primary value of residential storage consisted of the following: first, undoubtedly, backup power to secure household electricity during outages; second, increasing the self-consumption rate of solar power to reduce electricity purchases from the grid; and third, participating in virtual power plants (VPPs) and demand response to provide adjustability during peak grid hours. This time, Sunrun has allowed us to see a new value: providing localized energy infrastructure for AI inference compute. This is not simply a matter of "placing a server in the home." The genuine change lies in the control logic—the home-side system must simultaneously manage household loads, solar output, battery status, electricity rate structures, grid service opportunities, as well as the runtime and power demands of the compute nodes. The residential solar-plus-storage system has transformed from an "energy device" into an "energy + compute dispatch platform." This will further raise the importance of software and operational capabilities. In the past, the competition among residential storage companies concentrated heavily on customer acquisition capabilities, installation efficiency, financing solutions, battery costs, and after-sales service. In the future, if the distributed compute model holds ground, the competitive variables will also expand to include remote O&M, compute workload scheduling, cybersecurity, customer compensation mechanisms, grid rule adaptation, and the ability to connect with enterprise compute buyers. Storage hardware remains important, but it is no longer the sole protagonist. What may truly be repriced are those home-side energy assets that are controllable, aggregatable, verifiable, and capable of sustained operation. 03 Sunrun Wants to Add a "Compute Revenue Curve" Sunrun's past model closely resembled that of an energy service company. Through zero-upfront-cost subscriptions, leases, or PPAs, it puts residential solar and storage into homes, and then generates revenue through electricity savings, backup value, and grid services. If distributed AI compute successfully runs its course, Sunrun will gain an additional new revenue curve: compute revenue. If that is the case, along with it, several new changes will emerge. ▍Customer value will be recalculated In the past, the value of a residential customer primarily depended on energy bills, equipment lifespan, service fees, and grid program participation revenues. Now, it may additionally stack "node hosting compensation" and "compute capacity revenue." Customers are no longer just energy consumers, but have also become providers of energy and spatial resources. ▍The utilization rate of residential storage assets will increase Many residential storage systems are not frequently dispatched most of the time. Virtual power plants are releasing this idle value through grid dispatch, whereas the addition of compute nodes could allow the same home solar-plus-storage system to serve more scenarios, increasing the economic density per unit of asset. Of course, whether compute nodes can truly improve residential storage utilization also depends on how compute workloads, electricity rates, battery cycling strategies, and grid services are coordinated. But at least from a commercial logic standpoint, Sunrun is attempting to let the same set of home energy assets generate more revenue streams. ▍The customer boundaries of residential storage companies are expanding Previously, residential storage companies primarily faced households, electric utilities, and aggregators. Now, potential customers also include cloud providers, AI application companies, data center operators, edge compute platforms, homebuilders, and regional utility companies; the commercial boundaries of residential storage enterprises are being cracked wide open. It does not just sell electricity; it may also sell capacity and access to dispatch capabilities. Sunrun also indicated that it is currently in discussions with enterprise compute buyers, residential developers, and utility partners regarding subsequent commercial and deployment frameworks. Future residential storage companies might not only sell electricity, equipment, and dispatch capabilities, but will also sell the access capability of distributed compute. Relying on energy equipment, monitoring systems, and service teams that have already entered homes, companies can scale up distributed inference capacity much faster without having to fully replicate the lengthy pipeline of traditional data centers spanning site selection, construction, to grid interconnection. Prior to this AI compute pilot, Sunrun also announced collaborations with Renew Home and Tesla, planning to aggregate more than 16 GW of flexible home energy capacity to provide fast, flexible power support for hyperscalers and utilities. The two initiatives are distinct and separate, but they point toward the same underlying capability: organizing highly atomized home energy resources into a network that can be uniformly dispatched. 04 But This Still Remains Only a Pilot What needs to be acknowledged is that Sunrun currently still defines this project as a pilot. The announcement did not disclose the specific number of compute nodes, single-node power wattage, chip types, total compute scale, household compensation standards, unit compute costs, system availability, or commercial contract pricing—and these are precisely the keys that determine whether this model can be replicated on a large scale. A home environment, after all, is not a standardized data center. Once compute nodes enter residences, they must also confront a series of issues including heat dissipation, noise, space, electrical codes, maintenance responsiveness, insurance liabilities, privacy, and cybersecurity. Electricity rates and grid service regulations also vary across different states and utilities. Determining when the compute nodes run, whether they are powered by solar, batteries, or the grid, and how to avoid increasing household electricity bills and battery degradation all require a more sophisticated control system. Therefore, at this stage, a more accurate statement is not that "the home data center model has matured," but rather that Sunrun is verifying whether the distributed energy infrastructure already existing in homes can further carry AI inference workloads. 05 Closing Thoughts What truly deserves attention regarding this Sunrun pilot is not the act of moving a computing device into a home, but rather that it places the solar, batteries, and energy management systems scattered across thousands of households into the logic of AI infrastructure for the very first time. As more and more household energy assets are connected, dispatched, and traded, residential solar-plus-storage will no longer just be equipment installed on roofs and in garages, but could instead become a distributed energy network, or even the underlying nodes of a distributed computing network. Although Sunrun has only conducted a single pilot, it has also allowed us to see that AI is pushing the boundaries of data centers all the way from massive campuses into millions of households.
A Staggering Valuation? What Justifies This Residential Storage Startup's $13 Billion Price Tag
On August 3, U.S. residential energy storage company Base Power announced the completion of a new $1 billion funding round, bringing its valuation to $13 billion. The round was co-led by Ribbit Capital, Addition, Valor Equity Partners, and J.P. Morgan's Strategic Investments group. On the same day, Base Power also unveiled its next-generation, American-made home battery product, the Base Core, and announced that the product has already entered production at its Austin, Texas factory. A single $1 billion funding round, a new domestically manufactured product, and a rapidly expanding residential storage network—what Base Power is demonstrating to the market is no longer just a new home battery product, but an entire electricity service model built around residential energy storage. A 39.2 kWh Home Battery, Already in Production in the U.S. Let's start with the newly launched product. The Base Core has a total energy storage capacity of 39.2 kWh per system. According to Base Power's official data, under typical electricity usage conditions for an average American household, this system can provide approximately 12–18 hours of backup power; if users actively reduce consumption during an outage, backup duration can extend up to 36 hours. The system can automatically switch to battery power within approximately 50 milliseconds of detecting a grid outage, operates within a temperature range of –30°C to 50°C, and is primarily designed for whole-home backup, extreme weather events, and prolonged power outages. Compared to Base Power's previously deployed residential storage systems, the new product places greater emphasis on American-made manufacturing and rapid installation capability. According to information the company disclosed to Reuters, the Base Core has already entered production at the Austin factory, with current monthly output reaching several thousand units, and on-site installation time can be kept within one hour. The new system has also been strengthened for extreme weather and extended outages. That said, the 39.2 kWh new product is only part of this announcement. More noteworthy than the launch of a new home battery is the fact that capital has once again poured $1 billion into Base Power. Valuation Surges from ~$4 Billion to $13 Billion in Under 10 Months The speed at which Base Power's valuation has risen is uncommon in the energy storage industry. In October 2025, Base Power completed a $1 billion funding round at a post-money valuation of approximately $4 billion. By August 2026, the company secured another $1 billion in funding, with its valuation climbing to $13 billion. In other words, in less than 10 months, Base Power's valuation has surged from roughly $4 billion to $13 billion—more than three times its previous post-money valuation. What capital is betting on is clearly more than just a home battery. What Capital Sees Is More Than a Simple Storage Device On the product level alone, Base Power is a home battery seller, but its business model is not entirely the same as that of traditional residential storage equipment vendors. Traditional home storage companies primarily earn one-time revenue by selling equipment. Customers purchase batteries, pay installation fees, and once the equipment is delivered, the battery typically belongs to the household. Base Power, by contrast, adopts a more capital-intensive operating model. After a household has a storage system installed, the battery remains owned and operated by Base Power. The company handles equipment maintenance, repairs, and necessary replacements, while managing battery charge and discharge schedules through software. When the grid is operating normally, batteries can charge when electricity supply is abundant and prices are low, and discharge during periods of high grid load, helping to balance supply and demand. Taking the CenterPoint service area in Texas as an example, customers pay a one-time installation fee of $695 and a monthly membership fee of $19, which provides them with a 39.2 kWh home battery and long-term maintenance service. Customers still pay Base Power for their daily electricity usage, while Base Power retains ownership and dispatch control of the battery assets. During normal grid operations, Base Power can leverage these distributed batteries to participate in grid regulation and energy trading, thereby forming a closed business loop: "households pay for affordable backup power, while Base Power monetizes the long-term operation of battery assets." When a power outage occurs, the home battery disconnects from the public grid and switches to supplying backup power to the household. When thousands or even tens of thousands of home batteries are connected together, Base Power can aggregate these distributed devices into a virtual power plant (VPP), participating in grid regulation and earning corresponding revenue. In other words, Base Power does not simply sell home batteries to households and end the relationship—instead, it installs batteries in customers' homes and retains long-term operational and dispatch rights over these assets. For every new household added, Base Power gains not just a customer, but also: a storage node already connected to the distribution grid; a battery asset that can be dispatched over the long term; an electricity service subscriber; and a gateway to future participation in capacity markets, grid regulation, and energy trading. This is also the biggest difference between Base Power and an ordinary residential storage installer. Over 500 MWh of Residential Storage Deployed; Utility Partnerships Exceed 200 MW Sustained large-scale funding would not be possible without the rapidly growing deployment scale that Base Power is achieving. To date, Base Power's residential storage network has cumulatively deployed or is operating over 500 MWh of home storage capacity. The company also collaborates with utilities including El Paso Electric, Austin Energy, and CoServ, with related partnership projects collectively representing more than 200 MW of dispatchable capacity. According to Base Power's official website, over 20,000 households currently use its energy services. In regions with open retail electricity markets, Base Power can simultaneously offer households both electricity plans and backup batteries; in areas served by vertically integrated utilities, the company partners with local power companies to deploy residential storage as a distributed grid resource. This model is generating two primary revenue streams. One comes from household customers, including installation fees, electricity sales, and membership services. The other comes from the grid and utility companies, encompassing battery dispatch, capacity services, peak shaving, and grid balancing revenue. The same battery can provide households with outage backup while simultaneously participating in grid services during normal operations. Base Power aims to increase the utilization rate of its battery assets to offset the upfront costs of manufacturing, installation, and asset ownership. $1 Billion in Funding to Fuel Continued Capital-Intensive Expansion Of course, this model also means that Base Power needs to continuously invest substantial capital. The company must not only design and manufacture batteries but also bear the costs of customer acquisition, site surveys, installation, equipment ownership, software-based dispatch, repairs, and long-term operations. These capital expenditures often occur before batteries are installed and generating revenue, while the associated returns may take years to recoup over the service period. Therefore, the faster Base Power wants to scale, the more upfront capital it needs to deploy. The fact that this $1 billion funding round was announced simultaneously with the Base Core's production launch also indicates that the new capital already has fairly clear allocation priorities: expanding Austin factory capacity, improving installation efficiency, and replicating the residential storage business across more U.S. markets. From this perspective, Base Power's $13 billion valuation is not because capital views it as an ordinary battery manufacturer. What investors are truly betting on is whether Base Power can build, ahead of competitors, a distributed energy network covering a large number of households. When the batteries of tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of homes are connected and centrally dispatched, this network could gradually become a new form of infrastructure within the U.S. power system. Final Thoughts Base Power does not position itself as a home battery manufacturer, but rather as an electricity company providing reliable, affordable energy to American households. This also explains why Base Power is not only building battery products but also developing home energy services and grid partnerships. The Base Core is the hardware foundation of this business model, but what will truly determine Base Power's future value may not be how much energy a single battery can store—rather, it is how many residential storage nodes the company ultimately controls. The more storage devices connected to the platform, the richer the accumulated data on customer load profiles, battery performance, and electricity market dynamics becomes, which theoretically helps improve forecasting and dispatch capabilities. That said, a capital-intensive model also entails greater financial pressure and execution risk. Whether the factory can sustainably increase output, whether installation costs can decline, and whether battery assets can generate stable returns will all determine whether the company's high valuation can truly be justified. What is certain is that Base Power is attempting to redefine the business model of residential storage companies. In the future, home storage companies may not need to rely solely on one-time equipment sales for revenue. By connecting home batteries, providing energy services, and participating in grid regulation, companies can also transition from equipment manufacturers to distributed energy network operators.
H1 Net Profit Reaches RMB 778 Million: How Did REPT BATTERO Defy the Downturn?
In 2025, REPT BATTERO achieved its first annual profit since its establishment. By the first half of 2026, the company had taken another step forward: in just six months, its net profit had already surpassed the total for the whole of last year. According to its latest financial results, REPT BATTERO recorded revenue of RMB 14.916 billion in the first half of 2026, representing a 57.2% year-on-year increase. Gross profit reached RMB 1.980 billion , up 138.8% year on year , while net profit amounted to RMB 778 million . By comparison, REPT BATTERO's net profit for the full year of 2025 was RMB 681 million. In other words, from achieving its first annual profit since establishment to surpassing last year's full-year profit in only six months, REPT BATTERO has clearly accelerated the pace of its earnings growth. What, then, is driving this shift from initial profitability to faster profit growth? A closer look at the changes REPT BATTERO has made over the past year shows that the answer does not lie in the sudden surge of a single business. Instead, the company is reshaping the way it grows. Not a Sudden Surge, but a Different Approach to Growth In 2025, REPT BATTERO achieved its first annual profit since its establishment and began entering a phase in which revenue and profit improved simultaneously . Of course, this improvement did not happen overnight. Behind it were a series of adjustments made by the company over the preceding year. In 2025, REPT BATTERO continued to advance internal reforms, reorganized the division of responsibilities between the group and its production bases, and adjusted its R&D, manufacturing, marketing, and sales systems. Its business strategy also became clearer. The energy storage business continued expanding into overseas markets, while the power battery business focused more closely on platform-based products and core customers. At the same time, a notable change emerged on the sales side. In recent years, price competition in the lithium battery industry has been intense, with many companies repeatedly lowering prices to secure orders. REPT BATTERO, however, began strengthening customer screening and risk controls, established a mechanism linking product prices to raw material prices, and voluntarily gave up certain low-margin, high-risk orders . This did not mean the company had stopped pursuing scale. Rather, it had begun rebalancing the relationship between scale, profit, and risk. If the keyword for 2025 was still "turning profitable," then the challenge facing REPT BATTERO in 2026 became: as the business continues to expand, can the company retain more of that growth as profit? Among the core businesses supporting this growth trajectory, energy storage continues to occupy an important position. Energy Storage Continues to Grow, but the Story Is No Longer Limited to Residential Storage The latest financial results show that energy storage battery shipments reached 27.2 GWh , up 43.9% year on year , while revenue from energy storage battery products increased by 81.5% year on year . When people think of REPT BATTERO, the first label that may come to mind is still "the world's No. 1 supplier of residential energy storage cells." That advantage has indeed continued. According to data from SNE Research, GGII, and other institutions, REPT BATTERO ranked second globally in energy storage cell shipments in the first half of 2026, while retaining the No. 1 position globally in residential energy storage cell shipments . At the same time, REPT BATTERO has been included in BloombergNEF's Tier 1 list of energy storage suppliers for 11 consecutive quarters. Residential energy storage has long been one of REPT BATTERO's strengths. As early as 2019, the company began developing 50Ah residential energy storage cells and was the first to define the industry standard for 50Ah residential storage cells . After years of development, the residential storage business has enabled the company to accumulate substantial product experience and establish a solid customer base. Maintaining its advantage in residential storage, however, does not mean that REPT BATTERO's energy storage business remains confined to its existing markets. In 2026, the company began developing products around emerging high-power-demand applications such as AI data centers, or AIDCs. Its product portfolio now includes the Powtrix® 6.9MWh energy storage system equipped with Wending® 648Ah cells, as well as Wending® 320Ah sodium-ion batteries. AI data centers differ from ordinary electricity-consuming applications. Computing facilities must operate continuously for extended periods, and any power fluctuation or interruption affects much more than a single piece of equipment. AIDCs therefore require not only more electricity but also higher levels of reliability, operational efficiency, and continuous power supply from energy storage systems. The combination of 648Ah high-capacity cells and a 6.9MWh energy storage system represents REPT BATTERO's product preparation for this emerging market. From residential storage to AIDCs, REPT BATTERO is gradually expanding its energy storage business from a relatively concentrated product market into a wider range of application scenarios. Product deployment, of course, is only the first step. What will truly matter next is whether these new applications can generate sustained orders and ultimately translate into revenue and profit. To understand where those orders may come from, it is necessary to examine another area in which REPT BATTERO is clearly accelerating: overseas markets. Overseas Orders Grow as the Globalization Strategy Takes Shape Overseas markets provide another key to understanding REPT BATTERO's latest growth. Beginning in 2025, the direct and indirect share of overseas orders in its energy storage business increased further , while the company entered into partnerships with a number of international companies. In March 2026, REPT BATTERO signed energy storage system supply agreements with seven European partners at an international renewable energy exhibition in Italy, with plans to deliver a combined 8.3 GWh of energy storage systems over the following two years. Earlier, REPT BATTERO signed a 3 GWh energy storage system supply agreement with Energy Vault for 2026, covering markets including Australia, the United States, and Europe. In Japan, REPT BATTERO also signed strategic cooperation agreements with Hanwa Co., Ltd. and another Japanese partner, with plans to deliver more than 1 GWh of energy storage systems to the Japanese market over the next two years. Beyond signing cooperation agreements, REPT BATTERO already has a project in commercial operation in Japan . Its independent grid-side energy storage project in Kanuma, Tochigi Prefecture, has completed grid connection, becoming the company's first formally operational independent grid-side storage project in Japan. The project has a capacity of 1.99 MW/8.35 MWh and uses 417kWh liquid-cooled outdoor DC energy storage cabinets supplied by REPT BATTERO as complete units. Moreover, REPT BATTERO's Japanese operations are no longer limited to establishing local teams and signing cooperation agreements. They have begun progressing into equipment delivery, grid-connection commissioning, and actual operation. At a minimum, these partnerships show that REPT BATTERO's overseas business is gradually moving beyond the early stages of "building channels and finding customers" and entering a more concrete phase of orders and deliveries. Alongside the progress in orders and project implementation, the company is also advancing its overseas localization strategy . According to its interim financial report, REPT BATTERO has established subsidiaries in the United States, Germany, Australia, Japan, the United Kingdom , and Southeast Asia . These overseas entities help the company remain closer to local customers, understand market demand more promptly, and support project delivery and subsequent services. In addition to its sales and service network, the company is gradually establishing overseas production capacity . REPT BATTERO is currently constructing a battery manufacturing base in Indonesia . The first phase has a planned annual capacity of 8 GWh , primarily serving power batteries, energy storage batteries, and related system products, and is already capable of commencing production. The company is also studying the possibility of establishing additional production capacity in other countries or regions in the future . On the one hand, these measures can strengthen its global brand influence and bring it closer to local customers; on the other, they can help diversify geopolitical risks. From establishing overseas subsidiaries and securing orders to bringing projects into operation and building overseas production facilities, REPT BATTERO's globalization strategy is moving from "building the framework" toward "turning the framework into a real business." However, having orders, channels, and production capacity in place does not mean that overseas growth has been fully realized. The more important factors to watch will be order delivery progress, capacity utilization at the Indonesian base, and whether overseas operations can genuinely contribute revenue and profit. Beyond Energy Storage, Power Battery Installations Enter the Global Top 10 Financial results show that power battery shipments reached 15.5 GWh, up 14.8% year on year, while revenue from power battery products increased by 29.8% year on year. Energy storage is an important foundation of REPT BATTERO's current business, but it is not the company's only source of growth. Its power battery business is also beginning to establish a stronger presence. In the first half of 2026, REPT BATTERO ranked sixth nationwide in power battery installations. In June 2026, the company's power battery installations entered the global top 10. In 2025, REPT BATTERO had already ranked second nationwide in new-energy heavy-duty truck battery installations. Rather than competing comprehensively with leading manufacturers across the passenger vehicle market, REPT BATTERO has adopted a strategy more focused on new-energy heavy-duty trucks, commercial vehicles, PHEVs, and other specialized applications . There is a strong product logic behind this strategy. The battery requirements of commercial vehicles are not entirely the same as those of ordinary passenger vehicles. For commercial operators, driving range is only one consideration. Battery weight, remaining payload capacity, charging time, the number of trips a vehicle can complete each day, and battery service life all directly affect operating costs. Commercial vehicles are therefore ultimately evaluated according to an "operational economics" calculation. At this year's Brand Day, REPT BATTERO highlighted products including the Chenxing S Series and Chenxing D800 Pro. The underlying approach is to balance capacity, weight, dimensions, charging efficiency, and service life across different transportation scenarios. In mining applications, the company is also serving as the exclusive power system supplier for a project involving 100 unmanned battery-electric mining trucks. Whether this business can become a stable second growth curve for REPT BATTERO will depend on continued expansion among core customers and whether the new-energy commercial vehicle market itself can sustain its growth. Judging from installation volumes and rankings in specialized markets, however, the power battery business is beginning to establish a more visible market presence. From "Champion" to Long-Term Operations Against this background, the theme of REPT BATTERO's 2026 Brand Day— "Champion's 'Cell' · A Moment for Dreams" —becomes easier to understand. "Champion" naturally refers in part to market rankings such as the company's position as the world's leading supplier of residential energy storage cells. But what REPT BATTERO seeks to communicate is not limited to holding first place at a particular moment. Looking at the company's operational changes over the past year, it appears more interested in emphasizing whether, in an increasingly competitive industry with increasingly transparent prices, a company can gradually transform short-term rankings into long-term operating capabilities. That is also why the second half of this year's Brand Day did not continue with an intensive series of product launches. Instead, the stage was given to young pianist and Brand Day Dream Ambassador Liu Hao. Liu has lived in a world without sight since childhood due to a visual impairment, but he has persisted in studying music and later attended the Peabody Institute of Johns Hopkins University and the New England Conservatory of Music in Boston. By choosing such a figure as its Brand Day Dream Ambassador, REPT BATTERO clearly intended to communicate more than the outcome of becoming a "champion." It also sought to emphasize the long-term perseverance and continuous growth behind that result. This kind of brand messaging cannot, of course, directly explain the company's financial figures. But viewed in the context of REPT BATTERO's current stage of development, it echoes the company's operational transformation. In the past, observers may have evaluated REPT BATTERO mainly through residential storage rankings, shipment volumes, and orders. Now, the company wants to demonstrate whether it can ultimately transform these interim advantages into sustainable profitability. Final Thoughts From achieving its first annual profit since establishment to expecting its first-half net profit to surpass the total for the whole of last year, REPT BATTERO has completed a relatively clear turning point. Compared with the question of "how much the company earned in six months," the structural changes behind this latest period of growth are more worthy of attention. Internally, the company has begun readjusting its organization and operating strategy. Instead of relying solely on low prices and order volumes to gain scale, it is placing greater emphasis on profit and risk. On the business side, its residential energy storage advantage continues, while new applications such as large-scale storage, AIDCs, and grid services are broadening its addressable markets. Overseas operations are moving from the early construction of sales networks toward orders, delivery, and localized production. At the same time, the power battery business continues to advance in specialized markets such as new-energy heavy-duty trucks, commercial vehicles, and PHEVs. Taken together, what REPT BATTERO is doing now is not simply "making revenue bigger." What it is really trying to solve is how to transform a lithium battery company that has achieved profitability from a one-time turnaround story into a business capable of sustained growth. Its performance in the first half of 2026 has provided a promising start.
