China’s energy storage sector is rapidly expanding. As a solution to balancing the country’s growing energy needs and mass renewable energy production, the industry has attracted investments worth hundreds of billions of yuan (tens of billions of dollars).
This has seen China become the world’s largest market for energy storage deployment. Its capacity of “new type” energy storage systems, such as batteries, quadrupled in 2023 alone.
This rapid growth, however, has caused other problems, such as what one analyst described as “temporary structural overcapacity” and low utilisation.
In this Q&A, Carbon Brief explores how China has been driving the sector forwards and how it fits into the nation’s wider energy transition.
Soaring battery deployment
China is currently the world’s largest market for energy storage, followed by the US and Europe, according to BloombergNEF.
This position was driven by a combination of market need for balancing renewable energy and government efforts to build a “new power system”.
China installed a massive 301 gigawatts (GW) of renewable capacity including solar, wind and hydro in 2023 alone – more than the total renewable generating capacity installed in most countries over all time.
As of May 2024, “clean energy” generated a record-high 44% of China’s electricity, according to Carbon Brief analysis.
However, despite the renewable energy boom, China’s power system still struggles to absorb all of the generation, making energy storage – which bridges temporal and geographical gaps between energy supply and demand – a key tool for the country to improve its renewable energy integration.
The majority of China’s storage capacity comes from large-scale storage projects, such as hydropower with reservoirs on the Yangtze River and gigawatt-level battery energy storage systems in Inner Mongolia.
Pumped hydro storage is the most common utility-scale storage system and has a long history in China. It pumps water uphill to a reservoir and then releases it to generate electricity. As of 2023, pumped hydro storage surpassed 50GW, making up over half of the country’s overall storage capacity.
The remaining half is comprised primarily of batteries and emerging technologies, such as compressed air, flywheel, as well as thermal energy.
These technologies, known as the “new type” energy storage in China, have seen rapid growth in recent years. Lithium-ion batteries dominate the “new type” sector.
The deployment of “new type” energy storage capacity almost quadrupled in 2023 in China, increasing to 31.4GW, up from just 8.7GW in 2022, according to data from the National Energy Administration (NEA).
This means that China surpassed its target of reaching 30GW of the “new type” energy storage by 2025 two years earlier than planned. The goal had been set by the NEA and China’s top economic planner the National Development and Reform Commission, under the 14th “five year plan”.
(Read Carbon Brief’s Q&A: What does China’s 14th ‘five year plan’ mean for climate change?)
Wang Shurui, researcher at the Institutes of Science and Development, Chinese Academy of Sciences, tells Carbon Brief:
“Advancements in the storage sector will enable a greater integration of renewable energy into the power grid, enhancing grid stability and helping accelerate China’s emissions reduction.”
High deployment, low usage
To promote battery storage, China has implemented a number of policies, most notably the gradual rollout since 2017 of the “mandatory allocation of energy storage” policy (强制配储政策), which is also known as the “new energy plus storage” model (新能源+储能).
Under the mandate, which applies in dozens of provinces, renewable companies are required to include a certain amount of energy storage capacity alongside new solar and wind generation projects, with the storage allocation rate ranging between 5% to 20%.
“This mandate is driving storage growth, as it pushes the build-out of large-scale energy storage stations,” says Guo Shiyu, climate and energy campaigner from Beijing-based thinktank Greenpeace East Asia. She tells Carbon Brief:
“The stations may not look huge separately, but they are mostly built on the generation side [alongside generating capacity], which are still quite big compared to industrial and commercial self-built storage [on the demand side].”
Cheaper costs led by technology innovation have helped the market’s increasing adoption of batteries too, Sun Yongping, researcher of emissions trading and vice-dean of the Institute of State Governance at Huazhong University of Science and Technology, tells Carbon Brief.
“An interviewee told me in a recent field study that the cost had fallen by over a half these years,” says Sun. “Local development is so fast that too often you can’t grasp it [in a] timely [way] just by looking at the statistical numbers,” he adds.
Despite its positive intentions, the mandatory storage policy has had unintended consequences. Notably, a significant portion of the installed storage capacity remains underutilised.
In regions covered by the State Grid – the government-owned operator that runs the majority of the country’s electricity transmission network – over four-fifths of the storage systems operate less than 10% of the time, with many used only once every two days, according to a Bloomberg report.
Another challenge, according to Guo, is the additional project costs and lack of effective incentives, as many storage facilities were built or rented to fulfil government requirements but went unused afterwards.
Both Guo and Sun argue that China needs a deeper level of electricity market pricing reforms to create incentives to use storage.
For example, having electricity prices that change at different hours could encourage the adoption of storage technologies in China, suggests Sun.
Guo says: “We still hope that each place deploys new energy storage according to its needs and understands its own situation instead of adopting a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach.”
‘New driving force’ for economy
In 2024, the NEA named the energy storage sector as a “new driving force” for the country’s “new quality productive forces ” (NQPF). It could “propel the upstream and downstream industrial chains, promote scientific and technological innovation, talent training, investment and employment”, said the NEA.
(Read more on Carbon Brief’s Q&A: What China’s push for ‘new quality productive forces’ means for climate action.)
Regional governments are also exploiting the economic opportunity in energy storage. Guangdong, for example, aimed to make energy storage a “strategic pillar industry” of its economy by setting a target of 600bn yuan ($85bn) in annual revenue from the energy storage industry by 2025, eyeing the domestic and overseas market as the global energy transition deepens.
Meanwhile, Zhejiang, Anhui and Guangdong also have ambitious targets of installing local storage capacity of 3GW each by 2025, according to a recent tally by Greenpeace East Asia, based on government documents.
The booming market has attracted more than 100bn yuan ($14bn) since 2021.
But risks of market turmoil also exist. According to battery industrial information provider Gaogong Industrial Institute, last year China saw over 70,000 newly registered companies in the sector, which indicated that the market – already seeing fierce competition – may now be undergoing an “overcapacity” period.
Guo says this period of “overcapacity”, however, is rather “temporary”. She adds:
“There exists a temporary structural overcapacity, as the current expansion of new type energy storage is outpacing the market needs.
“However, if the regional governments could provide more policy support for the application of storage projects, this ‘excess capacity’ due to insufficient market demand could be avoided.”
The post Q&A: How China became the world’s leading market for energy storage appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Q&A: How China became the world’s leading market for energy storage
Climate Change
A Tiny Caribbean Island Sued the Netherlands Over Climate Change, and Won
The case shows that climate change is a fundamental human rights violation—and the victory of Bonaire, a Dutch territory, could open the door for similar lawsuits globally.
From our collaborating partner Living on Earth, public radio’s environmental news magazine, an interview by Paloma Beltran with Greenpeace Netherlands campaigner Eefje de Kroon.
A Tiny Caribbean Island Sued the Netherlands Over Climate Change, and Won
Climate Change
Greenpeace organisations to appeal USD $345 million court judgment in Energy Transfer’s intimidation lawsuit
SYDNEY, Saturday 28 February 2026 — Greenpeace International and Greenpeace organisations in the US announce they will seek a new trial and, if necessary, appeal the decision with the North Dakota Supreme Court following a North Dakota District Court judgment today awarding Energy Transfer (ET) USD $345 million.

ET’s SLAPP suit remains a blatant attempt to silence free speech, erase Indigenous leadership of the Standing Rock movement, and punish solidarity with peaceful resistance to the Dakota Access Pipeline. Greenpeace International will also continue to seek damages for ET’s bullying lawsuits under EU anti-SLAPP legislation in the Netherlands.
Mads Christensen, Greenpeace International Executive Director said: “Energy Transfer’s attempts to silence us are failing. Greenpeace International will continue to resist intimidation tactics. We will not be silenced. We will only get louder, joining our voices to those of our allies all around the world against the corporate polluters and billionaire oligarchs who prioritise profits over people and the planet.
“With hard-won freedoms under threat and the climate crisis accelerating, the stakes of this legal fight couldn’t be higher. Through appeals in the US and Greenpeace International’s groundbreaking anti-SLAPP case in the Netherlands, we are exploring every option to hold Energy Transfer accountable for multiple abusive lawsuits and show all power-hungry bullies that their attacks will only result in a stronger people-powered movement.”
The Court’s final judgment today rejects some of the jury verdict delivered in March 2025, but still awards hundreds of millions of dollars to ET without a sound basis in law. The Greenpeace defendants will continue to press their arguments that the US Constitution does not allow liability here, that ET did not present evidence to support its claims, that the Court admitted inflammatory and irrelevant evidence at trial and excluded other evidence supporting the defense, and that the jury pool in Mandan could not be impartial.[1][2]
ET’s back-to-back lawsuits against Greenpeace International and the US organisations Greenpeace USA (Greenpeace Inc.) and Greenpeace Fund are clear-cut examples of SLAPPs — lawsuits attempting to bury nonprofits and activists in legal fees, push them towards bankruptcy and ultimately silence dissent.[3] Greenpeace International, which is based in the Netherlands, is pursuing justice in Europe, with a suit against ET under Dutch law and the European Union’s new anti-SLAPP directive, a landmark test of the new legislation which could help set a powerful precedent against corporate bullying.[4]
Kate Smolski, Program Director at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said: “This is part of a worrying trend globally: fossil fuel corporations are increasingly using litigation to attack and silence ordinary people and groups using the law to challenge their polluting operations — and we’re not immune to these tactics here in Australia.
“Rulings like this have a chilling effect on democracy and public interest litigation — we must unite against these silencing tactics as bad for Australians and bad for our democracy. Our movement is stronger than any corporate bully, and grows even stronger when under attack.”
Energy Transfer’s SLAPPs are part of a wave of abusive lawsuits filed by Big Oil companies like Shell, Total, and ENI against Greenpeace entities in recent years.[3] A couple of these cases have been successfully stopped in their tracks. This includes Greenpeace France successfully defeating TotalEnergies’ SLAPP on 28 March 2024, and Greenpeace UK and Greenpeace International forcing Shell to back down from its SLAPP on 10 December 2024.
-ENDS-
Images available in Greenpeace Media Library
Notes:
[1] The judgment entered by North Dakota District Court Judge Gion follows a jury verdict finding Greenpeace entities liable for more than US$660 million on March 19, 2025. Judge Gion subsequently threw out several items from the jury’s verdict, reducing the total damages to approximately US$345 million.
[2] Public statements from the independent Trial Monitoring Committee
[3] Energy Transfer’s first lawsuit was filed in federal court in 2017 under the RICO Act – the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, a US federal statute designed to prosecute mob activity. The case was dismissed in 2019, with the judge stating the evidence fell “far short” of what was needed to establish a RICO enterprise. The federal court did not decide on Energy Transfer’s claims based on state law, so Energy Transfer promptly filed a new case in a North Dakota state court with these and other state law claims.
[4] Greenpeace International sent a Notice of Liability to Energy Transfer on 23 July 2024, informing the pipeline giant of Greenpeace International’s intention to bring an anti-SLAPP lawsuit against the company in a Dutch Court. After Energy Transfer declined to accept liability on multiple occasions (September 2024, December 2024), Greenpeace International initiated the first test of the European Union’s anti-SLAPP Directive on 11 February 2025 by filing a lawsuit in Dutch court against Energy Transfer. The case was officially registered in the docket of the Court of Amsterdam on 2 July, 2025. Greenpeace International seeks to recover all damages and costs it has suffered as a result of Energy Transfers’s back-to-back, abusive lawsuits demanding hundreds of millions of dollars from Greenpeace International and the Greenpeace organisations in the US. The next hearing in the Court of Amsterdam is scheduled for 16 April, 2026.
Media contact:
Kate O’Callaghan on 0406 231 892 or kate.ocallaghan@greenpeace.org
Climate Change
Former EPA Staff Detail Expanding Pollution Risks Under Trump
The Trump administration’s relentless rollback of public health and environmental protections has allowed widespread toxic exposures to flourish, warn experts who helped implement safeguards now under assault.
In a new report that outlines a dozen high-risk pollutants given new life thanks to weakened, delayed or rescinded regulations, the Environmental Protection Network, a nonprofit, nonpartisan group of hundreds of former Environmental Protection Agency staff, warns that the EPA under President Donald Trump has abandoned the agency’s core mission of protecting people and the environment from preventable toxic exposures.
Former EPA Staff Detail Expanding Pollution Risks Under Trump
-
Greenhouse Gases7 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change7 months 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
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Spanish-language misinformation on renewable energy spreads online, report shows
-
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 Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits




