Disseminated on behalf of Surge Battery Metals Inc.
The global Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) market is growing at a rapid pace. The expansion is driven by the rise of renewable energy, the increasing need for grid stability, and the growth of electric vehicles (EVs).
BESS allows electricity to be stored when supply exceeds demand and released when demand is higher than supply. This technology is becoming essential for utilities, commercial users, and residential applications.
Powering Demand: EVs and Energy Storage Drive Growth
J.P. Morgan’s recent analysis shows that shipments of stationary energy storage batteries will rise by 50% in 2025 and 43% in 2026. This surge is causing the lithium supply to move into a deficit.
Analysts estimate that BESS will account for about 30% of global lithium demand by 2026, rising to 36% by 2030. Global lithium demand in lithium-carbonate-equivalent (LCE) terms could reach ~2.8 million tonnes by 2030.
Demand is rising not only from energy storage but also from the EV sector. J.P. Morgan has increased its forecast for EV-related lithium demand by 3–5% for the years 2025 to 2030. This change shows that more people are adopting electric vehicles globally.
The rising demand is further amplified by policies encouraging renewable energy adoption. Many countries are setting goals for renewable energy and cleaner grids. This opens up new chances for energy storage.
Utilities are using BESS more widely. They do this to manage peak loads, integrate renewable energy, and offer services like frequency regulation and black-start capability.
Price Sparks: Lithium Supply and Market Tightness
Despite growing demand, supply faces significant constraints. Many lithium producers hesitate to restart idle production. They want prices to rise enough for them to profit.
J.P. Morgan highlights that prices of $1,200–1,500 per tonne of spodumene are needed to bring new supply online. Spot prices have already risen from around $800/t to ~ $950/t, highlighting tightness in the market.
Lithium price forecasts have also been upgraded to reflect these market conditions:
- 2026/27: $1,100–1,200/t
- Long-term: $1,300/t
Higher price levels boost the economics of lithium projects. This benefits companies with strong ties to the BESS market. Higher prices also create incentives for new players to enter the market and expand existing projects.
Key Market Trends for BESS
The BESS market is evolving rapidly with several structural trends:
- Grid-scale storage growth: Large-scale BESS deployments are increasing to help utilities manage intermittent renewable generation and maintain grid stability.
- Distributed energy storage: Behind-the-meter storage for commercial, industrial, and residential users is rising as battery costs fall.
- Advances in battery technology: Lithium-ion battery performance is improving, with longer lifespans, higher efficiency, and better safety.
- Policy support: Governments worldwide are providing incentives and creating regulations that encourage energy storage adoption.
- Supply-chain risks: Lithium, nickel, cobalt, and other critical minerals remain a bottleneck, and securing a reliable supply is a key challenge for the industry.
J.P. Morgan says that high demand and limited supply are creating a structural deficit in the lithium market. This is pushing prices up and making companies that supply lithium for BESS applications more appealing.
Spotlight on Surge Battery Metals: A Rising Player
Surge Battery Metals (TSXV: NILI | OTCQX: NILIF) is advancing the highest-grade lithium clay resource currently reported in the United States. With this level of grade and consistency, the Nevada North Lithium Project (NNLP) represents the type of high-quality, domestic lithium supply that battery makers and grid-scale energy storage developers have been looking for – an “American-made” resource that strengthens U.S. supply chains and reduces dependence on imported material.
With the lithium market emerging from a prolonged downturn, high-quality projects with strong fundamentals are beginning to stand out. Surge Battery Metals is well-positioned in this environment as the company has:
- BLM approval for its Exploration Plan of Operations,
- Hosts the highest-grade lithium clay resource currently reported in the USA, and
- Maintains a strong treasury to advance the NNLP. NNLP holds an inferred resource of 11.24 Mt of lithium carbonate equivalent (LCE) at 3,010 ppm Li, showcasing the scale and potential quality of its lithium assets.
These advantages – combined with a high-grade, near-surface deposit located in mining-friendly Nevada – position Surge as one of the few lithium explorers with the potential to advance meaningfully toward production as market conditions improve. Demand for BESS is rising quickly, which boosts its potential advantage.
Forecasts and Industry Analysis: Lithium and BESS Outlook
The BESS market is expected to continue growing sharply over the next decade. According to J.P. Morgan, stationary energy storage will account for 30–36% of lithium demand by 2030. Utility-scale projects will lead this growth. However, commercial and residential installations will also play a big role.
Price trends are likely to remain supportive for suppliers. Spot prices are near $950/t, with long-term forecasts at $1,300/t. Companies that produce and supply lithium efficiently can capture significant value.
Industry analysts also highlight several emerging trends:
- Integration of smart-grid technology: AI and software solutions are being deployed to optimize energy storage and distribution.
- Hybrid energy storage solutions: Combining batteries with other forms of storage, such as pumped hydro or thermal storage, is becoming more common.
- Recycling and secondary supply chains: As BESS adoption grows, recycling lithium and other critical metals will become increasingly important.
These trends should boost the flexibility, efficiency, and sustainability of power networks globally.
Strategic Moves: Surge’s Path to Market Leadership
Surge Battery Metals is positioned to benefit from these industry dynamics. Its focus on high-quality lithium assets aligns with the rising demand for BESS. Key strategic considerations for the company include:
- Advancing projects efficiently to meet growing market demand.
- Forming strategic partnerships with battery manufacturers and utility companies to secure offtake agreements.
- Maintaining operational discipline and cost efficiency to maximize project returns.
Surge Battery Metals is currently advancing lithium exploration at its Nevada North Lithium Project with the goal of defining resources that could support future production. Its metallurgical testing has shown promising results. These include lithium carbonate of 99% purity, but the company is still working toward a full feasibility study. If development proceeds as planned, Surge could become a significant future supplier for the BESS market, although current supply remains limited.
The Bright Future of Energy Storage
Battery Energy Storage Systems are no longer a niche market. The growing use of renewable energy, the rise of electric vehicles, and updates to the grid are increasing the demand for lithium and other battery materials.
Moreover, the outlook for BESS is positive. Demand growth, tech improvements, and policy support all suggest the market will keep expanding. Supply limits and higher prices are opening doors for companies that can deliver lithium effectively.
By 2030, BESS could account for more than one-third of global lithium demand. Surge Battery Metals and similar companies are key to this shift. They help create cleaner, stronger, and more efficient electricity systems.
As the market grows, execution, timing, and partnerships will decide which companies benefit the most. Surge Battery Metals can shine in the energy storage market by focusing on high-quality lithium resources, smart development, and staying aligned with market trends.
- READ MORE: Lithium’s Surge: Why Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF (LIT) Is Outperforming NVIDIA Stock in 2025
DISCLAIMER
New Era Publishing Inc. and/or CarbonCredits.com (“We” or “Us”) are not securities dealers or brokers, investment advisers, or financial advisers, and you should not rely on the information herein as investment advice. Surge Battery Metals Inc. (“Company”) made a one-time payment of $50,000 to provide marketing services for a term of two months. None of the owners, members, directors, or employees of New Era Publishing Inc. and/or CarbonCredits.com currently hold, or have any beneficial ownership in, any shares, stocks, or options of the companies mentioned.
This article is informational only and is solely for use by prospective investors in determining whether to seek additional information. It does not constitute an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy any securities. Examples that we provide of share price increases pertaining to a particular issuer from one referenced date to another represent arbitrarily chosen time periods and are no indication whatsoever of future stock prices for that issuer and are of no predictive value.
Our stock profiles are intended to highlight certain companies for your further investigation; they are not stock recommendations or an offer or sale of the referenced securities. The securities issued by the companies we profile should be considered high-risk; if you do invest despite these warnings, you may lose your entire investment. Please do your own research before investing, including reviewing the companies’ SEDAR+ and SEC filings, press releases, and risk disclosures.
It is our policy that information contained in this profile was provided by the company, extracted from SEDAR+ and SEC filings, company websites, and other publicly available sources. We believe the sources and information are accurate and reliable but we cannot guarantee them.
CAUTIONARY STATEMENT AND FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION
Certain statements contained in this news release may constitute “forward-looking information” within the meaning of applicable securities laws. Forward-looking information generally can be identified by words such as “anticipate,” “expect,” “estimate,” “forecast,” “plan,” and similar expressions suggesting future outcomes or events. Forward-looking information is based on current expectations of management; however, it is subject to known and unknown risks, uncertainties, and other factors that may cause actual results to differ materially from those anticipated.
These factors include, without limitation, statements relating to the Company’s exploration and development plans, the potential of its mineral projects, financing activities, regulatory approvals, market conditions, and future objectives. Forward-looking information involves numerous risks and uncertainties and actual results might differ materially from results suggested in any forward-looking information. These risks and uncertainties include, among other things, market volatility, the state of financial markets for the Company’s securities, fluctuations in commodity prices, operational challenges, and changes in business plans.
Forward-looking information is based on several key expectations and assumptions, including, without limitation, that the Company will continue with its stated business objectives and will be able to raise additional capital as required. Although management of the Company has attempted to identify important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially, there may be other factors that cause results not to be as anticipated, estimated, or intended.
There can be no assurance that such forward-looking information will prove to be accurate, as actual results and future events could differ materially. Accordingly, readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking information. Additional information about risks and uncertainties is contained in the Company’s management’s discussion and analysis and annual information form for the year ended December 31, 2024, copies of which are available on SEDAR+ at www.sedarplus.ca.
The forward-looking information contained herein is expressly qualified in its entirety by this cautionary statement. Forward-looking information reflects management’s current beliefs and is based on information currently available to the Company. The forward-looking information is made as of the date of this news release, and the Company assumes no obligation to update or revise such information to reflect new events or circumstances except as may be required by applicable law.
The post How BESS and Lithium Demand Are Shaping Energy Storage: Global Shipments to Surge 50% in 2025 appeared first on Carbon Credits.
The accounting differences that decide whether your nature investment shows up in inventory, in BVCM, or nowhere at all.
The question reaches a procurement team about three weeks before the next sustainability committee meeting. Someone has read about insetting. Someone else has just signed off on an offset purchase. The CSO wants to know if the two are interchangeable. The answer is no, and the GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard is the reason why.
This article walks through what each term means at audit-grade specificity, what the standards actually say about how each gets counted, and how to decide which tool fits which target. The insetting vs offsetting question is one of the most-searched in corporate climate strategy, and one of the most poorly answered. By the end of this piece, you should be able to brief a committee on the difference without notes.
The two definitions, in plain English
Offsetting means buying carbon credits generated outside your value chain and retiring them against your residual emissions. The reduction happens somewhere else, financed by you, and the credit is the receipt.
Insetting means investing in emission reductions or removals inside your own value chain, typically with suppliers, where the reduction is directly linked to the products and services you buy. The reduction happens inside the boundary of your Scope 3 inventory, and the accounting treatment is fundamentally different.
The shorthand from the University of Oxford’s Nature-based Insetting Initiative is useful: insetting is what you do with the supply chain you have; offsetting is what you do with the supply chain you do not have.
What the GHG Protocol Land Sector Standard actually says
The GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard, finalised in 2024 after a multi-year pilot, sets the rules for how land-based emission reductions and removals enter corporate inventories. The Standard distinguishes between inventory accounting (Scope 1, 2, and 3) and project or intervention accounting (a separate methodology for crediting).
For insetting, the practical implication is that supplier-level interventions, when properly measured and attributed, can reduce your Scope 3 category 1 (purchased goods and services) emissions in your inventory. The reduction is not a credit retired against the inventory; it is a lower inventory number, period.
For offsetting, the credit is retired separately. It can be reported as a contribution toward a net-zero claim under the SBTi Beyond Value Chain Mitigation framework or as part of a VCMI Carbon Integrity claim, but it does not lower the inventory number.
A practical consequence: if your Science Based Target requires a 50% absolute reduction in Scope 3 emissions by 2030, insetting moves you toward the target. Offsetting does not. This single point of difference reshapes the procurement decision.
When insetting counts toward Scope 3 (and when it does not)
Insetting counts toward Scope 3 only when several conditions are met:
- The intervention must occur with an entity in your value chain.
- The emissions reduction or removal must be measured against a defensible baseline.
- The reduction must be attributed to your share of that supplier’s output, not double-counted with other buyers.
- It must follow the inventory accounting rules in the GHG Protocol Land Sector Standard, not the project accounting rules used to generate credits.
The most common failure mode is double counting. If your supplier sells the same reduction as a credit on the voluntary market and also reports it to you as a Scope 3 reduction, the math breaks. The Standard requires you to address this risk, typically by purchasing and retiring the supplier-issued credit as part of your inventory or by contractual provisions that prevent the supplier from selling the reduction twice.
When insetting does not count toward Scope 3: when the intervention sits with a supplier you do not buy from, when the baseline is not defensible, when the attribution is unclear, or when the documentation does not survive audit. Those cases default to Beyond Value Chain Mitigation, which is still useful but operates on a different ledger.
The procurement and supplier engagement question
Insetting is harder than offsetting. That is the unfashionable truth most buyers eventually confront. Offsetting is a transaction; insetting is a relationship.
To run an insetting program, you need supplier mapping precise enough to know which farms or facilities sit at which Scope 3 boundary. You need an engagement model that gets suppliers to participate, which usually requires multi-year commitments and shared economics. You need an MRV architecture that measures the right things and produces audit-ready documentation. And you need a contractual structure that prevents double counting and protects both sides.
The trade-off you receive in return is significant. Reductions count against your inventory rather than your residual. Supplier relationships deepen, which protects sourcing continuity. Yield and quality improvements often follow regenerative interventions, which reduces your input cost over time. And the regulatory file, under CSRD, CSDDD, EUDR, and the SBTi FLAG Guidance, is materially stronger.
Choosing the right tool for the right target
A practical decision rule. If your target is a science-based Scope 3 reduction and you operate in a FLAG sector or source FLAG commodities, insetting is the structurally correct tool. If your target is a net-zero claim that includes neutralising hard-to-abate residual emissions outside your value chain, BVCM via high-integrity offsets is the structurally correct tool. Most companies with material Scope 3 exposure need both, in different proportions, sequenced over time.
The sequencing matters. Insetting takes longer to stand up but produces a permanent reduction in the inventory. Offsetting can be transacted faster but does not change the inventory and now sits under tighter claim restrictions. Treat them as complementary tools with different jobs, not as substitutes. The Accountability Framework Initiative and the IUCN Global Standard for Nature-based Solutions both provide useful guardrails for the insetting side, with biodiversity, human rights, and benefit-sharing requirements that go beyond carbon math.
If you are mapping a Scope 3 reduction roadmap and need to scope which interventions count toward your inventory versus which sit in Beyond Value Chain Mitigation, the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital can help you structure a nature-based supply chain investment program that fits your FLAG exposure, your target architecture, and your audit horizon. Schedule a consultation.
Net zero is often described as a balancing act: cut what you can, account for the rest, and reach zero on the ledger. That framing is useful, but it leaves something out. It treats every tonne of carbon as interchangeable and every route to zero as equally sound, while the science tells a more specific story.
Malawi has lost a striking share of its forests over the past three decades. Woodlands that once covered well over a third of the country now cover less than a quarter, and the pressure on what remains is increasing. Behind those figures sit two practical questions: what is driving the loss, and what reverses it?
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy10 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits