Battery energy storage has entered a new era. Costs have fallen to historic lows, and deployments are accelerating across major markets. According to BloombergNEF’s (BNEF) Levelized Cost of Electricity 2026 report, the economics of grid storage shifted dramatically in 2025 — even as other clean energy technologies became more expensive.
- The global benchmark cost for a four-hour battery storage project dropped 27% year-on-year to $78 per megawatt-hour (MWh) in 2025.
That marks the lowest level since BNEF began tracking the data in 2009. As a result, batteries are now reshaping how power systems balance renewable energy and meet rising electricity demand.
At the same time, solar and wind projects faced cost pressures. Supply chain constraints, weaker resource quality in some regions, and policy reforms in mainland China pushed up benchmark costs. However, despite these short-term headwinds, BNEF expects long-term clean energy costs to continue declining through 2035.
Battery Storage Breaks Records While Solar and Wind Stall
In 2025, battery storage clearly stood out. The $78/MWh benchmark for a four-hour system reflected a steep and rapid decline. Lower battery pack prices, stronger competition among manufacturers, and better system design all helped drive the drop.
By contrast, solar and wind moved in the opposite direction. The global benchmark cost for a fixed-axis solar farm rose 6%, reaching $39/MWh. Onshore wind increased to $40/MWh. Offshore wind climbed sharply to $100/MWh due to tight supply chains and financing challenges.
Thermal power also became more expensive. The levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) for new combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) plants jumped 16% to $102/MWh — the highest level recorded. Equipment price increases and strong demand for gas turbines, partly fueled by data center expansion, kept costs elevated. Coal plants also faced higher capital expenses.
Yet even with solar and wind costs rising in 2025, BNEF projects that innovation and scale will push prices down again over the next decade. By 2035, the firm expects:
- Solar LCOE to fall 30%
- Battery storage to decline 25%
- Onshore wind to drop 23%
- Offshore wind to decrease 20%
These projections suggest the current cost increases are temporary rather than structural.
China’s Cost Advantage
Wind energy told a more mixed story.
Mainland China retained a cost advantage. However, projects built in lower wind-speed regions pushed up the global benchmark. Onshore wind projects outside mainland China saw a 4% cost decline, but the global average rose 2% due to Chinese market dynamics.
Offshore wind faced deeper challenges. Supply chain bottlenecks increased turbine and installation costs across major markets. In the United Kingdom, recently financed offshore wind projects now cost 69% more than they did five years ago. BNEF expects offshore wind costs to remain elevated until at least 2030.
Still, in the United States, wind power regained its position as the cheapest source of new electricity generation in 2025. Rising gas turbine costs pushed wind ahead of gas for the first time since 2023.
EV Overcapacity Slashes Battery Prices
One major factor behind the storage cost collapse is manufacturing overcapacity in the electric vehicle (EV) sector.
China’s lithium-ion battery production capacity surpassed 2 terawatt-hours in 2024. That was about 60% higher than total battery demand. As a result, manufacturers competed aggressively on price, which benefited grid-scale storage buyers.
Battery pack prices for EVs fell 8% in 2025 to a record low of $108 per kilowatt-hour, according to BNEF’s December survey. Lower pack prices directly reduced the cost of large storage projects. Meanwhile, system-level improvements — including better integration and optimized engineering — improved performance and reduced overall project expenses.
According to Amar Vasdev, senior energy economics associate at BNEF and lead author of the report, manufacturing overcapacity and better system designs are transforming the economics of large energy storage projects. In six markets, the LCOE of a four-hour battery system has already dropped below $100/MWh.
That threshold is critical. At those levels, battery storage becomes highly competitive with fossil fuel peaking plants.
- RELATED: China’s One Month Lithium Battery Energy Storage Installations Beat America’s One Whole Year
Lower Battery Costs Drive Renewables Plus Storage Boom Worldwide
Lower battery costs are accelerating hybrid renewable development. In 2025 alone, developers added 87 gigawatts of co-located solar and storage projects worldwide. These combined systems delivered electricity at an average cost of $57/MWh.
This model solves one of solar’s biggest challenges — intermittency. Batteries allow solar farms to store excess daytime generation and dispatch it later when demand peaks. As storage becomes cheaper, solar-plus-storage projects become more financially attractive and reliable.
BNEF expects annual global energy storage additions to reach 220 GW by 2035, growing at a compound annual rate of nearly 15%. If that projection holds, batteries will become central to grid balancing worldwide.
The U.S. Storage Boom Accelerates
The United States is emerging as a key growth engine for battery deployment.
According to the February 2026 Electric Power Monthly report from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), 86 GW of new utility-scale capacity is expected to come online in 2026. Of that total, 26.3 GW will come from battery storage.
That represents the largest single-year capacity expansion in more than two decades. Solar and battery storage together account for nearly 79% of planned additions.
Texas has become a hotspot for battery development. As of July 2025, the state had 12.2 GW of storage capacity operating. Developers rushed projects online ahead of summer peak demand, including nearly 1 GWh brought online by esVolta across three projects.
California continues to lead nationally, with more than 12 GW of operational storage capacity. Projects such as the Rexford solar-plus-storage facility in Tulare County strengthened the state’s position as a grid storage pioneer.
Meanwhile, New England expanded its footprint with large-scale additions to the ISO New England grid. These projects demonstrate that battery storage is no longer confined to a few early-adopter markets.
Australia’s Breakout Year
Australia also delivered a major milestone in 2025. The country commissioned 4.9 GWh of utility-scale battery storage during the year — more than the combined total installed between 2017 and 2024.
In the fourth quarter alone, over 1,000 MW of new capacity came online. Large projects, including the 500 MW Liddell battery system in New South Wales, highlighted the rapid pace of expansion.
Australia’s experience shows how quickly storage can scale once policy support, market design, and financing align.
Data Centers Drive the “Race for Electrons”
A powerful new demand driver is reshaping electricity markets: data centers.
The rapid expansion of AI and cloud computing has triggered strong demand for reliable power. Gas turbine orders surged as operators sought firm capacity. This demand doubled U.S. turbine capital costs in just two years.
However, higher gas costs are improving the competitiveness of renewables and storage. In regions like California and parts of Texas, co-located solar and four-hour battery systems can already meet a significant share of data center demand at lower cost than new gas plants.
Grid interconnection queues and gas turbine supply constraints are also slowing fossil fuel projects. In contrast, solar and storage systems can often deploy more quickly.
As Vasdev explained, the world is in a “race for electrons” to meet rising demand from electrification and data centers. In many markets, renewables are not only cheaper for new builds — they are now undercutting the operating costs of existing fossil fuel plants.
Solar beats new coal and gas across most Asia-Pacific markets. Wind is the lowest-cost new generation source in the U.S. and Canada. Solar consistently outcompetes fossil fuels in Southern Europe, while wind dominates in Northern Europe.
From Niche Technology to Grid Backbone
Battery storage has moved beyond its early-stage niche. It is now central to power system planning.
As storage costs fall, batteries strengthen renewable energy revenues, stabilize grids, and reduce reliance on fossil-fuel peaking plants. Instead of building new gas capacity for short-duration peaks, operators can increasingly rely on storage-led balancing.
BNEF’s annual LCOE report analyzed more than 800 recently financed projects across over 50 markets and 28 technologies. Its expanded coverage of the Middle East and Africa highlights how storage economics are improving globally, not just in mature markets.
The broader message is clear. While 2025 delivered mixed signals for clean power costs, battery storage emerged as the clear winner. Manufacturing overcapacity, technological learning, and intense competition have driven prices to record lows.
Looking ahead, continued cost declines could accelerate the global shift toward renewable-dominated grids supported by flexible storage. In that transition, batteries are no longer optional. They are becoming the backbone of a reliable, low-carbon electricity system.
The post Renewables Plus Storage Surge as Battery Costs Drop Record Low, BNEF Reports appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Insetting program design starts with your supplier map. The carbon claim comes much later.
Consider a coffee procurement team that funds a farm intervention before checking its sourcing data. The supplier aggregates coffee lots from several regions. The buyer lacks farm-level traceability. Another purchaser expects to report the same outcome. A more attractive project brochure solves none of these problems.
If the distinction between a value-chain intervention and a purchased credit is still open, read CCC’s Insetting vs Offsetting guide before you set the brief.
Insetting program design begins with the purchasing relationship and works outward. You need to decide 1) where an intervention belongs, 2) what business problem it addresses, 3) who pays for it, 4) how results will be measured, and 5) what the evidence will let you say about them. This five-step playbook turns that sequence into a procurement plan.
Step 1: Insetting program design starts with supplier mapping
Start with the commodities that matter most to your Scope 3 inventory and sourcing continuity. Ask finance for spend by supplier, sustainability for the emissions baseline, and category managers for origin and volume records. Then identify which suppliers can trace material to a jurisdiction, sourcing region, producer group, or individual land-management unit.
The level of traceability affects what you can account for. Under the GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard, the spatial boundary for purchased land-based products depends on the traceability associated with each volume. Farm-specific factors or removals require physical traceability through an acceptable chain-of-custody model. A contract with a tier-one trader, by itself, does not establish a link to the farms behind its deliveries.[1]
Build a first-pass table with five columns: commodity and annual volume; supplier and origin; current traceability level; land-use and production risks; and the business owner who can change the purchasing terms. Mark missing data plainly. A blank cell is cheaper to fix before a program starts than after a claim is drafted.
If your company sets an SBTi Forest, Land and Agriculture target (FLAG), keep its land-related target boundary separate from energy and industry emissions. The current FLAG guidance also requires relevant companies to assess primary deforestation-linked commodities in their value chains.[2]
Step 2: Choose a commodity and jurisdiction for a pilot
Select one supply corridor where the sourcing connection can be established and procurement has a reason to stay. A useful pilot has repeat purchases, suppliers willing to share records, an intervention matched to a diagnosed problem, and a defined plan to measure the result. Carbon potential alone is a poor selection rule if the supplier cannot deliver the crop your business needs.
Compare candidate regions on land-use risk, supplier concentration, local rights and tenure, the availability of baseline data, and exposure to drought, erosion, or forest conversion. Check the relevant legal requirements separately. A nature project does not satisfy a due-diligence obligation merely because it has a carbon method attached.
Consider a coffee buyer sourcing from two districts. In the first, producer-group records identify the farms, while recent dry seasons have increased rejected green coffee lots. In the second, deliveries pass through several intermediaries and farm origins are unknown. Pilot shade management in the first district, with local agronomic advice and quality checks built into the plan. The buyer can trace purchases there and test the intervention against a defined sourcing problem.
Use a short decision memo to record why the selected corridor beats the alternatives, what remains uncertain, and what would stop the pilot. That memo is the first control against a project drifting toward whatever happens to photograph well.
Step 3: Design the supplier engagement and commercial model
The intervention needs an owner on each side of the contract. Decide who supplies planting material or training, who maintains the practice, who bears the cost if a harvest disappoints, and how long the buyer expects to purchase from participating suppliers. Where smallholders participate, budget cash flow and technical support for practices that offer a later return.
Put these terms in a supplier agreement or pilot addendum. It should cover eligible farms and volumes, consent to data collection, access for monitoring, any land or carbon rights that matter, benefit sharing, and what happens if the purchasing relationship ends. Ask local counsel and producer representatives to review the arrangement. The Accountability Framework is a useful reference for supply-chain work involving forests, ecosystems, and human rights.[3]
Avoid assigning an automatic carbon benefit to the buyer. The contract should say which party has the right to report each outcome, how overlapping claims will be checked, and how any issued credits will be handled. A reduction reported in a buyer’s inventory cannot simply be sold for someone else’s offset claim without an accounting review. SBTi FLAG guidance excludes purchased credits used as offsets from near-term FLAG target achievement.[2]
Set commercial measures beside environmental ones: delivered volume, rejection rate, supplier retention, and procurement cost. They tell you whether the program works as a supply-chain investment, even if carbon accounting takes longer to resolve.
Step 4: Build monitoring, reporting, and verification before rollout
Agree on the baseline and data flow before paying for a full rollout. Identify the land units or sourcing regions in scope, the practices that change, the records suppliers already keep, and the additional measurements the program requires. Decide which data can come from field visits, transaction records, or remote sensing, and who checks each source.
For carbon, separate three questions. Did the practice happen? Did emissions or removals change under an applicable method? Can the buyer attribute a defensible share to its purchased goods without double counting? The GHG Protocol’s 2026 guidance includes dedicated chapters on spatial boundaries, data and methods, evaluating actions, credited outcomes, and assurance.[1] These are distinct jobs. A photograph of a planted tree answers only part of the first.
CCC’s MRV and Additionality article explains the separate evidence questions a project reviewer will ask.
Create an evidence file for every reporting period: dated supplier and farm records, purchase volumes, methods and emission factors, uncertainty, quality checks, and changes from the baseline. Specify who can challenge the data and how corrections are recorded. If a project also seeks credit certification, keep project accounting and corporate inventory accounting separate. The GHG Protocol says its land standard focuses on entity-level inventories and does not set the rules for credit certification.[4]
Start with the minimum viable measurement design that can survive review. Add complexity when the pilot tells you which data actually changes a decision.
Step 5: Decide what can be reported and claimed
Insetting program design needs reporting rules before the marketing copy. Procurement, sustainability, finance, and legal should agree on four distinct outputs: operational performance; observed land or nature outcomes; inventory effects, if the accounting criteria are met; and any separately issued credits. One dashboard can display them, but they should not share a single unqualified headline.
SBTi FLAG guidance allows certain land-based removals within a company’s operations or supply chain to contribute to FLAG pathways, subject to criteria including permanence, traceability, data quality, and allocation. It does not allow purchased offsets to meet near-term FLAG targets.[2] Eligibility therefore depends on evidence and the applicable target rules, not on calling an activity “insetting.”
Draft a claims register. For each proposed sentence, record the period, boundary, data owner, calculation method, reviewer, and whether the result is measured, estimated, or still a goal. If the evidence supports only “we funded a pilot with 200 farms,” say that. Do not turn a funding fact into a verified emissions reduction.
What good looks like by year three
Treat year three as a review point, not a promised payback date. A mature pilot should have mapped participating supply volumes, a stable supplier agreement, a repeatable data collection process, and a comparison of commercial and environmental results against the baseline. It should also have a documented answer for outcomes that cannot be included in the buyer’s inventory.
Scale only where the pilot improves a sourcing decision and the evidence can follow the product. If neither condition holds, redesign the intervention or change the corridor. A disciplined program can conclude that a site is unsuitable. That is useful procurement intelligence.
Discuss your insetting program with CCC
Carbon Credit Capital designs nature-based supply chain investments around sourcing needs and measurable sustainability outcomes. Schedule a consultation with our carbon and sustainability experts to map your tier-one supplier network, FLAG exposure, and first pilot decision.
Sources
[1] GHG Protocol, Land Sector and Removals Standard, version 1.1, and companion Guidance, June 2026: https://ghgprotocol.org/land-sector-and-removals-standard ; https://ghgprotocol.org/land-sector-and-removals-guidance
[2] Science Based Targets initiative, Forest, Land and Agriculture Science-Based Target-Setting Guidance, version 1.2, March 2026, especially pp. 16–17, 37, and 41: https://sciencebasedtargets.org/resources/files/SBTiFLAGGuidance.pdf
[3] Accountability Framework initiative, Accountability Framework and guidance for companies: https://accountability-framework.org/
[4] GHG Protocol, Frequently Asked Questions: Land Sector and Removals Standard, questions 10 and 18: https://ghgprotocol.org/blog/frequently-asked-questions-land-sector-and-removals-lsr-standard
Nature-based carbon investments deserve consideration when they address a specific business dependency and produce outcomes you can measure. Imagine Moonbucks, a global coffee roaster planning next season’s espresso blend. It is considering natural Grade 4 coffee from Jimma, in southwestern Oromia, Ethiopia. Its sourcing decisions affect the roasting schedule and the cash tied up in coffee purchases. Moonbucks needs to understand which measures could protect that supply, what they would cost and how it would judge the results.
1. Define the sourcing problem before choosing a project
Moonbucks needs a dependable component for its espresso blend. Its procurement team wants continuity of volume and an agreed cup profile. Replacing a shipment at short notice could require new sample approval and changes to the blend, and given the schedules for cultivation, processing, and freight delivery, is practically impossible. Moonbucks needs to get this right, and its initial concern is inconsistent deliveries. It commissions an assessment of the supplying farms and post-harvest chain. The questions cover land condition, harvest availability and whether drying or storage problems are affecting saleable lots.
This distinction changes the investment brief. A tree-planting proposal cannot be assumed to fix drying problems. Better storage cannot restore eroded land. The team must establish which problem exists before selecting the response.
CCC’s guide to finding nature-based solutions in your supply chain explains where to look. Here, the next task is to turn a broad concern into a testable proposal.
2. Develop nature-based carbon investments around the actual supply chain
The assessment would trace Moonbucks’ purchases back through the exporter and supplying producer groups. Which farms supply the contracted lots? Who controls land-management decisions? How long does the buyer expect to maintain the purchasing relationship?
Furthermore, Jimma natural Grade 4 cannot be treated as interchangeable with every Ethiopian coffee. Moonbucks would need to test any substitute against its own blend and quality requirements.
Suppose Moonbucks’ assessment identifies an opportunity to maintain shade trees and restore vegetation along exposed streambanks. The IPCC describes agroforestry as a way to store carbon in vegetation and soil, with potential benefits for erosion control and water quality.1 Moonbucks would need local advice on species, growing conditions and maintenance before deciding how these measures fit its sourcing plan.
The proposal now has a defined sourcing connection and a candidate intervention. The next steps are to test its effect on production, assess carbon eligibility and build the financial case.
3. Compare the proposal with other ways to protect supply
WBCSD’s Nature-based Solutions Blueprint recommends comparing nature-based options with other responses across their benefits and costs.2 For Moonbucks, that means evaluating the landscape proposal alongside drying improvements, storage controls and alternative sourcing arrangements.
The product’s natural-process designation matters. Moonbucks should examine the drying and dry-milling chain alongside land conditions. Its team would check storage practices, contamination risks and incoming-lot quality to see whether problems arise before or after the coffee leaves the farms.
The revised proposal might combine land stewardship with separate post-harvest controls. Each component needs its own purpose and budget. A sustainability label should not obscure which activity is expected to solve which problem.
The project develops as the evidence improves. Its scope should follow the diagnosis rather than preserve the first idea unchanged.
4. Establish what the carbon outcome could count toward
Moonbucks’ sustainability team now tests the proposed carbon case separately from the sourcing case. Is the objective a measurable change in Moonbucks’ value-chain emissions, verified credits for separate voluntary use, or distinct outcomes under carefully defined arrangements?
Scope 3 covers value-chain emissions. A purchasing relationship alone does not prove that a farm intervention can be included in Moonbucks’ inventory. The team needs an applicable accounting method, defensible boundaries and evidence supporting attribution.
SBTi’s FLAG Guidance (forest, land and agriculture), version 1.2, says purchased credits used as offsets cannot meet near-term FLAG or energy and industry targets. Eligible land-based removals are subject to accounting requirements.3 Moonbucks needs to test its proposal against those rules before including an outcome in its targets.
For Moonbucks’ Jimma proposal, maintaining existing trees and establishing new vegetation could involve different carbon questions. Specialists must examine the baseline and additionality, meaning what changes because the project proceeds. They must also assess measurement and the risk that stored carbon is lost. CCC’s MRV and additionality article introduces those tests.
Until that work is complete, Moonbucks should not budget an assumed Scope 3 reduction or credit-sale receipt. Direct emissions reductions remain the priority.
5. Build a financial case that survives weaker assumptions
Moonbucks’ finance team would now build a multi-year budget. UNEP’s State of Finance for Nature 2023 compares current finance with the investment needed to meet climate, biodiversity and land-restoration goals.4 The company would cost its proposed activities, farmer participation and ongoing monitoring. Verification, where required, is a separate expense. Maintenance and responsibility for replacing failed plantings must remain visible after the initial establishment budget ends.
Operational benefits need equally careful treatment. If fewer rejected lots reduce emergency purchasing, count that saving once. Do not add “supply resilience” as another financial benefit when it represents the same avoided cost.
Moonbucks should compare a base case with slower benefits, higher implementation costs and no carbon revenue. It should also distinguish production outcomes from quality and shipment outcomes. A single good harvest would not prove that the landscape intervention caused better delivery performance.
A project can remain worth funding even when its carbon case needs more work. That decision must rest on the operational evidence and the company’s objectives, without unsupported environmental claims.
6. Fund a pilot with a clear expansion decision
Moonbucks’ first approval would fund a bounded pilot, rather than commit the entire sourcing program. Before spending, Moonbucks would agree on participating farms, responsibilities and the evidence needed at review.
Its scorecard could track farmer participation, implementation costs and plant survival, alongside accepted coffee volumes and lot-quality results. Carbon measurements would follow the selected method. Farm-level traceability must connect the intervention to the actual sourcing relationship.
Suppose Moonbucks’ review later finds that storage changes explain most quality improvements, while the land measures need longer observation. Those findings would shape the next decision: expand the proven component, adjust the landscape work or pause further spending. They would not justify crediting all improvements to tree planting.
This gives nature-based carbon investments a practical place in a multi-year strategy. Funding increases as the evidence supports it, and the project can change direction before a larger commitment.
Discuss a sourcing opportunity with CCC
Carbon Credit Capital’s nature-based supply-chain investment service uses its Dual-Value Model to examine supply-chain economics alongside potential sustainability outcomes.
Schedule a consultation to discuss your sourcing exposure and the questions to resolve before allocating capital.
Sources
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change, Chapter 7, Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Uses, section 7.4.3.3 (Agroforestry).
- World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), Nature-based Solutions Blueprint, 5 June 2024.
- Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), Forest, Land and Agriculture Science-Based Target-Setting Guidance, version 1.2, March 2026, section 3.1.4, pp. 37–38.
- United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), State of Finance for Nature 2023, 2023.
A plastic credit funds the collection of plastic waste in places where no formal system exists to collect it. Each credit represents a measured, independently audited quantity of plastic taken out of the environment or returned to use, tracked on a public registry.
