Back
China’s dominance of the battery supply chain is uncontested. Many U.S. storage companies have tried to catch up by replicating the technologies already in mass production there. But a smaller cohort is taking a different tack: building factories for next-generation batteries that could give American manufacturers more of a competitive edge.
Peak Energy is one of the newest members of that cohort. The startup, which appeared on the scene in 2023, took a big step this summer when it shipped its first sodium-based grid-battery system for installation in the field. The 875-kilowatt/3.5-megawatt-hour battery is now being completed in Watkins, Colorado, at a testing facility known as the Solar Technology Acceleration Center.
In fairness, the battery cells were imported from China, but Peak designed and built a new enclosure for them in Burlingame, California. Since the sodium batteries are especially rugged, Peak could forgo the temperature-control equipment needed for the current favorite chemistry for grid storage, lithium ferrous phosphate (LFP). If this first installation works well and the cost savings are as consequential as promised, Peak plans to build U.S. manufacturing for the whole package, cells and all.
The installation is a rare bright spot as the storage industry at large grapples with the impacts of Trump administration energy policy. President Donald Trump’s unpredictably shifting tariffs on China have raised the costs of imported batteries and made it hard to plan. The White House’s signature budget law ripped up some — but not all — tax credits meant to support domestic manufacturing of batteries, and added dense new bureaucratic requirements around components from China. New investment in domestic clean-energy manufacturing has plummeted since Trump took office.
But the power sector still wants to build grid batteries at record pace, especially as supersized data centers clamor for electricity supply as soon as possible.
Upstart battery-makers often jockey over how much energy density they can pack into their cells, or how they can reduce the fire risks that follow from squeezing so much energy into a tight footprint. Peak Energy brags more about what its technology doesn’t need: heavy-duty climate control.
“If you think about it, an LFP [energy storage system] is essentially a giant refrigerator that has to operate flawlessly for 20 years in the desert,” said Cameron Dales, Peak’s chief commercial officer and cofounder. That’s because that particular chemistry ideally needs to stay within a few degrees of 25 degrees Celsius (77 degrees Fahrenheit) to preserve its useful life; serious deviations from that safe zone could lead to declining performance or even dangerous failures. A handful of dramatic battery fires has already inspired community pushback against storage plants, making safety a crucial part of the industry’s social license. Indeed, this week U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin pledged to support communities resisting nearby battery installations.
The sodium-ion cells that Peak favors — technically called sodium iron pyrophosphate or NFPP — can withstand a much broader range of temperatures, from minus 20 degrees C (minus 4 degrees F) to 45 degrees C (113 degrees F). Peak’s engineers thus dispensed with the usual battery-cooling systems, relying instead on what Dales calls “clever engineering” around how the cells fit into the broader package. “There’s no moving parts, no fans, no liquids, no pumps, no nothing,” he said. The container does include a solid-state heater to ensure the cells never get too cold to charge.
This saves money by reducing the cost of materials and cutting auxiliary power usage up to 90% over the life of the project. But axing the conventional safety equipment brings one more major benefit, because that hardware has paradoxically caused several of the recent high-profile grid-battery fires (by, for example, erroneously spraying water on live batteries, which can make a fire where there wasn’t one).
Plenty of cleantech startups have pitched themselves as safer alternatives to dominant strains of lithium-ion batteries, only to be crushed mercilessly by the lithium-ion manufacturing juggernaut. Overwhelming scale and a wealth of industrial expertise keep pushing mainstream batteries to lower prices and superior performance. However, the up-front costs of the batteries themselves are now just a small piece of the overall bill.
“What has not really been addressed is the construction and installation of a project, and then, even more importantly, the long-term operating costs associated with running that power plant,” Dales said.
According to Dales’ calculations, the energy savings from the passive cooling of Peak Energy’s battery enclosure over a period of 20 years more than cover the initial cost of the battery cells. That’s one way to lure customers to a type of battery they haven’t seen before.
“How can a startup, who’s just getting up to speed and their costs are high and volume is not there yet, compete and win on a project like that?” he said. “It’s because these project economics are so good that even today, we can win on cost relative to … a Chinese LFP system.”
Flipping the switch on the Colorado project is just the start. Then Peak Energy needs to find paying customers interested in much bigger versions of the technology. But the startup has an innovative plan for that next step.
The founders of many battery startups focus on a technology that they find interesting (maybe they chose it for their doctoral research years ago), and then at some point have to convince customers to buy it. This typically leads to what Dales identified as “a classic failure mode, to get piloted to death.” The eager startup spends its precious time developing insignificant yet money-losing pilot installations with lukewarm customers, who try it for a few years and decline to make a follow-up purchase. Then the startup runs out of cash and collapses.
Peak Energy’s founders decided on a different strategy: develop a product in conversation with prospective customers, so they actually want to buy it when it’s ready.
The Colorado project, paid for by Peak, will be scrutinized by a consortium of nine utilities and independent power producers, who have signed on to receive exclusive performance data. If the project meets agreed-upon metrics, these companies will buy Peak’s product for their own use.
“If we do what we say we’re going to do, and the economics are what we think they are, then you should sign up for doing a real project, because it actually makes sense for you,” Dales explained. “That’s how these companies have entered the program, and now we’re in the ‘proof is in the pudding’ phase.”
Some of those consortium members have requested batteries for demonstration projects in 2026, in the storage range of 10 MWh to 50 MWh, Dales said. One large power developer is working on a 2027 project that would deploy nearly one gigawatt-hour of Peak’s sodium batteries to support a hyperscaler data center.
The path from initial installation to giga-scale projects always takes longer than battery startups initially pledge. In fact, only lithium-ion batteries have crossed that threshold, while more unusual variants languish in the minor leagues.
But Peak doesn’t have to invent the core technology — it’s piggybacking off an emerging field of China’s battery industry — and it’s coming to market at a time of propulsive growth in grid storage demand. Its task might not be quite so daunting as it has been for other battery innovators.
California’s premier “virtual power plant” program is already reducing the state’s reliance on polluting, costly fossil-fueled power plants. And that’s just the start of what the scattered network of solar and batteries could do to stymie rising utility costs — if the state Legislature can stave off funding cuts to the program, that is.
So finds a new analysis from consultancy The Brattle Group on the potential of the statewide Demand Side Grid Support (DSGS) program to help California’s stressed-out grid keep up with growing electricity demand. The program pays households and businesses that already own solar panels and batteries to send their stored-up clean power back to the grid during times of peak demand, like hot summer evenings.
Continuing the program’s payments to those customers to make their stored energy available could save all California utility customers anywhere from $28 million to $206 million over the next four years, the report found.
The findings come as state lawmakers attempt to rescue the DSGS program from a new round of funding cuts. Last year, California lawmakers slashed DSGS spending to deal with an unexpected budget shortfall. The situation is still troubled this year, and Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom has proposed defunding the program further, leaving it little money to pay participants beyond this year.
But the program could regain its financial footing if newly introduced legislation becomes law.
This week, California Assemblymember Jacqui Irwin, a Democrat, released draft legislation that would allocate money to DSGS from the state’s much-contested Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, which is supported by payments from polluting companies. That draft legislation calls for depositing 5% of revenue collected by electric utilities for that fund into a new account to finance DSGS from 2026 to 2034. Lawmakers don’t have much time to move the proposal forward, with the state’s legislative session ending Sept. 12.
Saving the program would be a win for reducing the state’s sky-high utility costs, according to Ryan Hledik, a principal at Brattle and coauthor of the report. “It’s cheaper to pay customers to provide grid resources from technology they’ve already adopted than it is to go invest capital in new stuff,” he said, including the fossil-fueled generators now used to meet peak grid needs.
California has already committed billions of dollars on emergency backup generators and on keeping aging fossil-gas-fired power plants open past their planned closure dates, he noted. The high end of the savings DSGS could provide is based on the assumption that it “would be a substitute for spending money on more expensive emergency resources,” he said.
At the same time, DSGS could also bring down the “resource adequacy” payments shelled out by California utilities, community choice aggregators, and other power providers to secure enough grid resources to meet peak demand in future years. Those costs have been rising in California, though not as drastically as they have in other parts of the country.
Since its launch in 2023, the battery program Brattle analyzed, which is one of the four options for customers to participate in DSGS, has grown to a collective 700 megawatts of capacity. The report forecasts the program could nearly double its current capacity to reach 1.3 gigawatts by 2028, covering roughly half the total residential distributed-battery capacity expected to be online in the state by then.
That won’t happen without state funding for the program, however — and though some state lawmakers are attempting to save DSGS’s funding, it remains unclear if the money will be there for future years.
If Irwin’s proposed provision becomes law, it would supply roughly $70 million to $90 million per year to DSGS over the next five years, said Brad Heavner, executive director of the California Solar and Storage Association. DSGS needs at least $75 million this year to operate in 2026, according to a letter sent to California lawmakers on Tuesday by 35 companies, trade groups, and advocacy organizations active in solar, batteries, on-site generators, and demand response, including Heavner’s group.
The amount of funding dedicated under the proposed legislation “won’t be enough for all the program activity we expect — but it will be enough to have a core program,” he said.
DSGS’s cost-effectiveness, demonstrated by the Brattle analysis, should give lawmakers confidence that the money isn’t being wasted, Heavner said. “It’s great that the Brattle study finds there’s a two-for-one benefit — every dollar spent here saves two dollars” for utility customers across the state, he said.
Brattle’s research was funded by Sunrun and Tesla, two companies with longtime programs that sign up customers to make their excess battery capacity available for grid services. Both firms benefit from initiatives that boost the value of the rooftop solar and battery systems they sell to households in California and beyond.
But the study also matches broader research on how virtual power plants can reduce blackout risks and electricity price spikes on U.S. grids. VPPs are collections of homes and businesses with smart thermostats, grid-responsive EV chargers, water heaters, and other appliances that can reduce how much power they’re using, as well as rooftop solar-charged batteries or generators that can push power back to the grid as needed.
Under the Biden administration, the U.S. Department of Energy found that the hundreds of billions of dollars that consumers spend on EVs, rooftop solar systems, batteries, smart thermostats, and other appliances could provide 80 to 160 gigawatts of VPP capacity by 2030, enough to meet 10% to 20% of U.S. peak grid needs and save about $10 billion in annual utility costs. (The Trump administration has removed this DOE report from the internet, but archived versions are available.)
VPPs also pass the eye test: They’ve helped avoid blackouts in Puerto Rico, New England, and California this summer. States including Colorado and Virginia have passed laws or created regulations requiring utilities to expand VPPs.
DSGS, for its part, has “scaled in a way that folks can no longer poke holes in its reliability,” said Lauren Nevitt, Sunrun’s senior director of public policy. Sunrun has dispatched hundreds of megawatts from its customers’ batteries in California so far this summer, all during hours of the evening when wholesale electricity prices spike above $200 per megawatt-hour.
In a two-hour experiment last month, Sunrun and Tesla dispatched 535 megawatts of battery power to the grid in what utility Pacific Gas & Electric called “the largest test of its kind ever done in California — and maybe the world.”
Lining up a steady source of funding for years to come would give these participating companies confidence that their investments in DSGS won’t be left stranded by future budget cuts, Heavner said — and encourage even more investment going forward.
Pressure to curb energy costs is particularly acute in California, where residential customers of the state’s three major utilities now pay roughly twice the national average for their power and where rates rose 47% from 2019 to 2023.
It is also among the best-positioned states to take advantage of VPPs to rein in those costs. California leads the country in rooftop solar, backup battery, and EV adoption, and a 2024 Brattle analysis found that VPPs could provide more than 15% of the state’s peak grid demand by 2035, delivering $550 million in annual utility customer savings.
DSGS is only one of a number of VPP options available in California. But advocates say it’s by far the most successful in a state that’s seen mixed progress on VPPs to date. In the past five years, stop-and-start policies from the California Public Utilities Commission have reduced overall capacity from demand-response programs that pay utility customers to turn down their electricity use to relieve grid stress.
DSGS, which is run by the California Energy Commission, has grown rapidly due to a combination of factors, said Edson Perez, who leads California legislative and political engagement for clean-energy trade group Advanced Energy United. It’s available to residents across the state, rather than being limited to individual utility territories and programs. It also has relatively simple enrollment and participation rules compared to many other programs, he said.
It can be tricky to quantify the costs and benefits of these kinds of programs compared to traditional utility investments in power plants or large-scale solar and battery systems. But Brattle’s new report is the “first analysis of what its value is out in the field,” he said, and the results show “it’s very cost-effective.”
Solar-charged batteries are also much less polluting than the state’s other emergency grid-relief resources, he said. DSGS is one of a set of emergency programs launched after California experienced rolling blackouts during summer heat waves in 2020 and more heat-wave-driven grid emergencies in 2022.
But most of the billions of dollars in emergency funding have gone to fossil-fueled generators. California had spent about $443 million on state-managed generators that burn fossil gas or diesel fuel as of December 2024, and has committed about $1.2 billion to keep fossil-gas-fired “peaker” plants in Southern California open until 2026, well past their scheduled 2020 closure date.
“We’re in a statewide affordability crisis,” Perez said. “Leveraging existing resources out there drives down costs for everyone.”
Electricity costs are going up in the U.S. — and the Trump administration’s attempts to choke off clean energy development are only going to make matters worse.
The average price of electricity for residential consumers is set to hit 17 cents per kilowatt-hour this year and could climb to 18 cents per kilowatt-hour in 2026, per a new report from the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
Electricity prices are rising at more than twice the rate of inflation. Just five years ago, in 2020, average U.S. power prices were only 13.15 cents per kilowatt-hour — 23% lower than they are today.
The difference may seem small, but even one additional cent would tack on roughly $108 to the average U.S. home’s expenses each year. It’s taking a toll on people’s wallets: A survey conducted this spring found that three in four Americans said they’re worried about rising utility bills.
Republican leaders — most recently U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright — have tried to blame the trend on the large amounts of clean energy hitting the grid, but that’s not the problem. Solar, wind, and batteries are the cheapest form of power, and a 2024 report from research group Energy Innovation found no correlation between renewable energy adoption and utility rate increases.
Numerous reports and studies reveal that the core drivers of rising prices include an aging distribution grid that requires expensive repairs, and damage to the system from the wildfires and storms exacerbated by climate change. Then there’s the volatile price of natural gas, which produces about 40% of U.S. electricity. Skyrocketing demand for power is also increasingly a factor, as people electrify their homes, businesses, and cars, and in particular as data-center developers snap up as much energy as they can to support their AI ambitions.
In January, President Donald Trump took office promising a great many things — including to make energy more affordable. But since then, household electric bills have risen another 10%, and the policies he’s enacted are set to exacerbate the problems at hand.
Due to the GOP megalaw signed by Trump last month, the U.S. could install as much as 62% less clean energy over the next decade, per Rhodium Group estimates. That’s a huge deal: It’s expected that 93% of the new electricity capacity built this year will be solar, wind, or batteries.
If renewable energy construction slows at the same time data centers and consumers require more power, it will create a clear dynamic of too much demand and not enough supply. The result will be even higher energy bills for Americans, Rhodium and others forecast — the exact opposite of Trump’s grand vow to rein in costs.
If your power bills are getting higher and higher, you’re not alone. That’s probably little comfort, but here’s some proof anyway: Utilities requested or were granted a total of $29 billion in rate increases in the first half of 2025, according to a study from advocacy group PowerLines. That’s more than double the total in the same period last year.
The biggest reason for these rising prices stems from the piece of the grid you can see from your window, as Heatmap reports. Utility poles and wires, also known as the distribution grid, shuttle power from high-voltage transmission infrastructure into homes and businesses. Over the last few years, building and maintaining these lines has become the biggest source of costs that utilities recoup via power bills, according to a December report from the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab.
Natural disasters are also driving up expenses as they force utilities to repair and harden their grid for future weather events. California utilities, for instance, have to rebuild after wildfires and in some cases are spending even more money to underground lines. In the Southeast, utilities routinely look to raise rates to cover post-hurricane restoration costs.
Then there’s the fact that natural gas remains the U.S.’s dominant energy source and that prices for that fuel remain higher than they were over much of the last two years.
Now for the second big question: Will things get better anytime soon? Probably not, for a few reasons.
For starters, power demand is on the rise, stemming in large part from the construction of energy-hungry data centers. Tech giants plan to keep building facilities to run their AI operations, and how they’re powered — and how that demand is managed — could end up making everyone else’s electricity more expensive.
That demand could be largely satiated by new solar and wind farms, which are typically quicker and cheaper to stand up than fossil-fueled and especially nuclear power plants. But the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that Republicans passed in July will soon wipe out federal tax credits that incentivized clean energy construction.
Instead, the Trump administration is pushing to keep aging fossil-fuel power plants online past their retirement dates — a mission that could end up costing utility customers as much as $6 billion each year by the end of President Donald Trump’s term. A federal order that kept a Michigan coal plant open past its planned closure cost its operator $29 million in its first five weeks, and just this week the Energy Department reupped the facility’s extension until November.
Treasury rules tighten access to clean energy tax credits
The U.S. Treasury Department has released guidance that will make it harder to access wind and solar tax credits before their ultimate expiration, Canary Media’s Jeff St. John reports. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act gives wind and solar developers two options to tap the credits: They must either put their project in service by the end of 2027 or begin construction by July 2026. The Treasury’s new guidance narrows the federal government’s longstanding definition of what marks the start of construction.
Still, things could’ve been a lot worse, experts told Jeff — deadlines to finish work could’ve been accelerated, for example. And with these rules, developers have the clarity they’ve been waiting for to make decisions and get building.
USDA pulls support from solar, wind on farmland
Federal assistance for solar and wind power on farmland is fading. On Tuesday, the U.S. Agriculture Department announced that it will “no longer fund taxpayer dollars for solar panels on productive farmland or allow solar panels manufactured by foreign adversaries to be used in USDA projects.” It will also render wind and solar projects ineligible for the agency’s Business and Industry loan program, and bar Rural Energy for America Program loans from being used for ground-mounted solar projects larger than 50 kW.
The Trump administration has already taken multiple shots at REAP, Canary Media’s Kari Lydersen reported in July, freezing nearly $1 billion in funding for farmers and closing a window for new applications before it even opened.
“Come to America and lose $1B”: Foreign offshore wind developers have faced steep financial losses over the past few years, and they’ve only intensified under the Trump administration’s anti-wind policies. (Canary Media)
Polluting the post: Republican U.S. senators move to strip federal funding for the U.S. Postal Service’s transition to an EV fleet to save taxpayer money, though industry observers say the move would have the opposite effect. (Associated Press)
Steel’s dangerous warning: Last week’s fatal explosion at Pennsylvania’s Clairton Coke Works underscores the urgent need to decarbonize the coal-reliant steelmaking industry. (Canary Media)
Solar still rises: The Energy Information Administration estimates the U.S. will add 33 gigawatts of solar power to the grid this year, amounting to half of all new generation brought online in 2025. (EIA)
A red flag for gas stoves: A new Colorado law will require gas stoves to come with labels that warn buyers about the carcinogens and pollution the appliances emit, though a lawsuit has delayed its implementation for now. (Canary Media)
Cruising to electrification: New York City debuts its first hybrid-electric ferry, which is making trips from Manhattan to an emerging climate-change research hub on Governors Island. (Canary Media)
Counting on cleanup: California advocates worry Phillips 66 may shirk its responsibilities to clean up a “lake of hydrocarbons” that has accumulated under a Los Angeles-area refinery slated for closure later this year. (Capital & Main)
This story was originally published by THE CITY. Sign up to get the latest New York City news delivered to you each morning.
When a heat wave hits New York City, many customers can soon expect a message from Con Edison, asking customers to conserve energy.
The reason is to protect the heat-strained electric grid, which, when taxed to the point of failure, can lead to blackouts and brownouts.
Addy Spiller, an Upper West Sider and founder of a product management business, said those messages from Con Ed drive her bananas.
“Listen, I don’t know how to use less electricity,” she said. “I already have the AC at a reasonable temperature. I don’t think I can do enough to help Con Ed on my own.”
But this summer, Spiller and her dog, Ranger, are among 65 households across the city actually doing more to help — and they don’t have to stop blasting their ACs on sweltering days. That’s because they’re participating in an experiment that connects their air conditioning units to small batteries in their homes. The batteries, about the size of a small microwave oven, plug into wall sockets.
The pilot program, called Responsible Grid, is run by the company Standard Potential in partnership with Con Ed. When demand for energy is high but the utility company needs customers to lay off, the company powers the participants’ AC units with the battery instead of the electric grid.
“There’s a class of large portable phone chargers almost, and instead of powering a whole building, they power a single device and take it off the grid,” said Andrew Wang, Standard Potential’s CEO. “Because we have the battery, it allows folks to participate in the program without having to adjust their comfort levels.”
If more New Yorkers were to connect electric appliances to batteries in their homes, this approach could make the city more resilient, add to the stability of the electric grid, and keep people cool. Responsible Grid is one of about a dozen programs residential Con Ed customers can enroll in to reduce energy during key windows and get financial rewards.
Participants who have the freely provided batteries in their homes through September will also receive about $100 per air conditioning unit plugged into them from Responsible Grid, as Con Ed pays the company to reduce demand.
In southeast Queens, participant Farudh Emiel noticed several times over the hottest days of the summer that his three air conditioning units plugged into the batteries he got through the pilot program kept pumping even as he saw lights dimming. It was likely Con Ed reduced the voltage in his neighborhood to protect the electric system, but his AC units, relying on the batteries, were unaffected.
“I run my ACs 24/7, three of them at the same time,” Emiel said. “One thing I will spend money on is electricity because I don’t want to sweat.”
Outside the individual homes of the participants, batteries have the potential to reshape the electric-supply system and protect ratepayers’ wallets.
When demand for power is high, especially in the summer, fossil-fuel-fired peaker plants kick in to meet that need. Those plants, often located in and around low-income neighborhoods, can be highly polluting and costly to rely on.
“By switching your AC to a battery rather than the outlet, you’re providing a measure of relief to the grid, avoiding more expensive, dirtier power plants turning on,” said Jamie Dickerson, senior director of climate and clean energy programs at Acadia Center, a research and advocacy nonprofit.
The small batteries in participants’ homes have served as a source of backup power in other instances.
In the midst of a heat wave in July, Emiel had just finished cooking a meal when the power went out in his neighborhood. He scurried around his home — a detached, multistory house — to connect his refrigerator, WiFi router, and TV to the batteries.
“We were the only house with electricity because of the stand-alone batteries,” said Emiel, who works as a policy manager for a clean-energy advocacy organization. “We had internet still, we were charging our phones, we had a lamp connected. The air conditioning was still working.”
The blackout lasted for about four hours, he said.
Spiller, too, relied on her batteries in early June, when her prewar apartment building had a planned electrical outage to do some upgrades. The day was hot, and she began feeling stressed as she wondered where she should bring her dog and how she’d get her work done. But then she remembered the battery.
“With the battery, I was able to continue working. My AC worked, my WiFi worked,” Spiller said. “It was such a relief to realize I had a little bit of a buffer and didn’t have to leave my house — I was able to continue just living.”
New York state is looking to deploy large batteries to help make the grid more reliable, especially as officials look to add more forms of renewable energy to replace fossil-fuel sources, and as electric heating, stoves, and vehicles become more common. Wind and solar projects produce power intermittently, but batteries can store extra energy and discharge it back into the grid when the wind doesn’t blow or the sun doesn’t shine.
But connecting big batteries to the grid requires navigating lots of red tape and finding major real estate, two tough tasks in New York City that can slow down adoption.
Jesse Jenkins, a professor in energy and engineering at Princeton University, called the pilot a “compelling model and a good way to avoid the very high costs and bureaucratic headaches of trying to install a grid-connected home battery or solar system.”
But he added that eventually, getting more customers to put the batteries “comes down to the cost of these devices, and whether the value delivered exceeds that cost.”
Looking ahead, Wang said he’s looking forward to scaling up the program to include more participants next summer, and to potentially try pairing the batteries with electric heat pumps in the winter.
Energy storage is having a moment — but the batteries that are taking off today only have enough juice to provide a few hours of grid power. Developers technically could stack up more batteries for longer-term storage, but that gets prohibitively expensive. For a renewables-dominated grid to ride out days of poor solar production or even just an entire night, a breakthrough in cost-effective, longer-term storage is needed.
Over the last couple decades, venture capitalists have recognized this transformative possibility and heaped billions of dollars into the sector known as long-duration energy storage, or LDES. They have little to show for their efforts. The startups that haven’t gone bankrupt have built some factories and early installations, but have not built any particularly large-scale projects, at least in the U.S.
A few weeks ago, I saw something in the desert outside Reno, Nevada, that got me thinking the investors and startups may have been barking up the wrong tree all along.
Former Tesla Chief Technology Officer JB Straubel unveiled a surprising new project in June at the Tahoe campus of his lithium-ion recycling company, Redwood Materials. Instead of ripping apart old electric vehicle battery packs, his engineers arranged them across a patch of desert and hooked them up to an adjacent solar field. This assemblage now stores so much clean power that it can run a small on-site data center, rain or shine, night or day.
In other words, instead of inventing a brand-new technology tailored for long-term storage, Redwood made it way cheaper to stack enough time-tested lithium-ion batteries to accomplish that goal.
Unveiling this new business line, Straubel wasn’t just diversifying his revenue streams. He was staking claim to the long-duration storage market writ large.
“We’re confident this is the lowest-cost storage solution out there,” Straubel said. “Not only just lower than new lithium-ion batteries, but lower than compressed-air energy storage, lower than iron-air, lower than a number of these other ones that carry a little more technology risk.”
As he spoke, Straubel pointed at a bar graph depicting the costs of those types of LDES technology, as well as thermal storage, pumped-hydro storage, and flow batteries. Naturally, the chart showed his used batteries clocking in cheaper than all of them.
It’s a big claim. Second-life battery development is even newer than the LDES field; prior to Redwood, only a handful of companies, like B2U Storage Solutions and Element Energy, had built large-scale second-life storage plants, and those were just in the last few years. The sector has a lot of work to do to convince customers and financiers that the gently used battery packs can be trusted to hold up over years of service. And with new lithium-ion packs getting ever cheaper, the discount offered by used batteries may prove tenuous.
Still, Straubel’s first operating project, which holds 63 megawatt-hours of energy storage, is already bigger than any novel battery installation in the U.S. If Straubel takes this concept mainstream, it could revolutionize the arms race for long-duration storage — and radically improve the odds of running the economy on a largely renewable grid.
At the June event, Straubel essentially asserted that his band of desert engineers, in just a few months of tinkering, has outmaneuvered the researchers and companies working on long-duration for decades.
That deserves some scrutiny — but even pinpointing the costs of the competition is challenging.
“There are a lot of flavors of long-duration storage. What all of them have in common is that actual deployments have been very limited up until now,” said Pavel Molchanov, who analyzes cleantech companies for financial services firm Raymond James. “To make any clear-cut statements about which particular flavor is cheaper than any other would be quite premature.”
Redwood says its second-life battery installations cost less than $150 per kilowatt-hour today, for systems that can deliver power over 24 to 48 hours. The company’s datapoints on the prices of other battery types were drawn from BloombergNEF’s 2024 analysis of the LDES field, augmented with Redwood’s internal estimates for what a complete iron-air system would cost today, since that technology isn’t yet commercially available.
Iron-air is under development, most famously, by Straubel’s former Tesla Energy compatriot Mateo Jaramillo at Form Energy, a VC darling that’s raised more than $1.2 billion to date. Redwood calculated iron-air costs at higher than $150 per kilowatt-hour, but Form has stated its intentions to sell batteries below $20 per kilowatt-hour when its factory reaches full production scale.
It’s worth noting that not all these technologies are directly comparable, because companies design and market them at different durations based on their technical sweet spots. If a technology works especially well at, say, 12 hours duration, the company might not even sell it for 48-hour configurations.
“Part of the issue with comparing long-duration storage systems and prices is that every company will give you their price point for a different duration,” said James Frith, a longtime battery analyst now at VC firm Volta Energy Technologies. “Then you’re thinking, how do I normalize this? How do we get to a base point that is comparable amongst the technologies?”
Epistemological issues aside, Redwood accurately diagnoses that the LDES sector’s struggle to deliver real installations at super-low cost leaves an opening for new competitors.
Brand-new lithium-ion batteries aren’t economically viable at longer durations, though their limits keep expanding as battery prices fall.
“Lithium-ion storage systems with longer durations require more battery cells, making the system capital-intensive and less economically competitive compared to emerging long-duration storage alternatives,” said Evelina Stoikou, head of battery technology and supply chain research at BloombergNEF.
Pumped-hydro and compressed-air energy storage work for longer durations, but they are huge, billion-dollar infrastructure projects of the sort that don’t get built anymore in the U.S. (Canadian company Hydrostor is attempting to break that curse with a $1.5 billion, 500 MW/4,000 Mwh compressed air project in California; if it gets permits to build, it might be online by 2030.)
Flow batteries — which store energy in tanks of liquid electrolytes — have been kicking around for decades with some success in China, where they benefit from government favor. In the U.S., they’ve not gained much traction.
Meanwhile, many LDES startups have made the strategic error of designing exotic storage solutions to eke out a few more hours, under the incorrect assumption that lithium-ion would never be able to compete at four, then six, and then eight hours.
Take ESS, which has developed an iron-based flow battery since 2011: Despite leaning into “long-duration” branding, the company was selling an Energy Warehouse with a bit over six hours duration, and only this year announced a “strategic shift to the 10+ hour product.” (Its board members had to throw in more cash last month to sustain the company through that shift, and gamely agreed to forgo personal compensation for the year.)
The LDES companies most vulnerable to competition from Redwood are the ones that aren’t actually very long-duration, and which haven’t gotten big enough to make their products cheaper.
That’s not to say the other LDES contenders are left quaking in their boots.
“We’re a long way away from proof that second-life batteries are a proper utility-grade asset, capable of 20 years of daily cycling,” said Ben Kaun, who for years analyzed LDES technologies for the Electric Power Research Institute and now works for battery startup Inlyte Energy. “I don’t see an existential threat to LDES.”
The sector has even been showing signs of life, at least compared to its dismal track record from the preceding decade. Form completed its factory in Weirton, West Virginia, and broke ground on its first commercial deployment, in Minnesota, last summer. The company plans to deliver its first batteries to the project in the coming weeks, for commissioning this fall. Over in the Netherlands, a Dutch startup called Ore Energy recently installed a small 100-hour system of its own iron-air battery, based on research at the Delft University of Technology.
Flow batteries have built up considerable installed capacity in China, but that trend hasn’t gotten much coverage in English-language press, said Eugene Beh, CEO and cofounder of California-based flow-battery startup Quino Energy. His strategy is to leverage the now-mature supply chain for flow-battery equipment but to drop in an electrolyte based on quinones, commonly used in clothing dyes, instead of the more expensive vanadium that’s popular in China.
Italian startup Energy Dome has moved swiftly from demo to commercial operations with an iconoclastic design: It stores energy by compressing carbon dioxide in a controlled environment; decompressing it turns a turbine and generates electricity. After building a pilot and a commercial project in Sardinia, Energy Dome just announced an equity investment from Google for an undisclosed amount and a commitment to build its systems to power Google’s data center expansion around the world.
These more out-of-the-box LDES companies might take solace in a few limitations that second-life battery developers must overcome to mount a serious challenge.
Second-life companies take hundreds of batteries from different manufacturers, with different patterns of wear and tear, then operate them all in concert. If that was easy, more people would be doing it by now. Firms that get this wrong could start fires, and fire safety is one of the key arguments used against lithium-ion installations, both by rival technologists and the general public.
Then again, Straubel has as much experience as anyone with the inner workings of lithium-ion batteries. At Tesla, he built the nation’s leading electric-car company and a wildly successful stationary-storage business with the Powerwall and Megapack.
Then there’s the question of longevity. The batteries were pulled out of vehicles for a reason: usually due to their capacity degrading, though other problems develop with age, like higher internal resistance, which makes batteries heat up during discharge. If second-life packs need to be swapped out too frequently, it undercuts the ease and cheapness of the model.
That leaves the matter of supply. Success in second-life depends on a steady and cheap source of gently used EV packs. Here Redwood has a unique advantage, in that the company was constituted to collect the nation’s battery waste and recycle it. Straubel said Redwood was receiving less than 1 gigawatt-hour of used EV packs two years ago, and now is pulling in more than 5 GWh per year.
The available supply of used EV packs is “going to follow roughly the same curve as electric vehicle adoption, but lagging by, let’s say, 10 years,” Frith said. “So we are going to start seeing the volume of packs growing, and I think the real volumes start to kick in closer to 2030.”
Indeed, he added, the growth in volume of used EV packs could parallel the growth of demand for long-duration storage: Few customers buy it now, but many analysts expect demand to grow by the end of the decade as renewables saturate the grid.
It’s too soon to know if used EV batteries will actually wipe the floor with the more unconventional long-duration battery technologies. But the scale and price point of Redwood’s first project announces them as a force to be reckoned with in this arena.
In doing so, Redwood puts a new spin on an energy-storage maxim that venture capitalists keep forgetting, or simply ignoring: Lithium-ion always wins.
Challengers that rely on different chemistries have to build up from negligible production scale and convince customers to take a chance on a design that few people have seen before. It’s a clear uphill battle.
Lithium-ion batteries, in contrast, command an unmatched and ever-expanding scale of industrial production, mostly in China but increasingly in the U.S. too. That manufacturing juggernaut unlocks incremental gains from economies of scale and continual innovation. It also confers consumer confidence, because the technology has such a clear track record of performance.
“Compared to most experts’ predictions, the costs have gone down faster and the performance has improved faster for lithium-ion than people predicted 10 years ago,” said Jeff Chamberlain, who helped the Department of Energy license battery technology to General Motors and LG Chem back in the late 2000s, and now invests in storage technologies as CEO of Volta Energy Technologies.
Nonetheless, investors continued to bet that the streak would end, and they could own a piece of the transformational tech that would triumph for longer-term storage.
“What a lot of startups and investors are doing is assuming the LDES market will exist and it will be enormous, and they’re assuming lithium-ion won’t solve the problem,” Chamberlain said. “I believe that is a very, very bad assumption.”
Over the last decade, lithium-ion has steadily chipped away at use cases where new battery inventions were supposed to win out. New lithium-ion is starting to push into six-hour configurations and beyond, said Stoikou, from BloombergNEF. Global average pricing for turnkey grid storage averaged $165 per kilowatt-hour in 2024, per the data firm’s 2024 survey.
Now, the cost savings from reusing lithium-ion packs accelerate the chemistry’s push into the long-duration market — something that would be a big win for grid-decarbonization efforts, while delivering the LDES hopefuls yet another stinging loss.
Clarifications were made on August 6 and August 7, 2025: This story has been updated to reflect Eugene Beh’s full title and to note that Hydrostor is attempting to build a large-scale compressed air project in California.
The Trump administration recently terminated a $4.9 billion loan for the Grain Belt Express, the country’s biggest transmission grid project. Sen. Martin Heinrich, Democrat from New Mexico, says the decision is illegal.
In an exclusive new interview with Canary Media, Heinrich discusses why he’s demanding that the Department of Energy account for the decision — and what response he’s received.
Last month, Heinrich, the top Democrat on the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, sent a letter to the DOE challenging its vague excuse for cutting off the legally binding contract between the federal government and Invenergy, the Chicago-based energy project developer planning to build the power-line project from Kansas to Illinois.
“Not only am I concerned that this move is illegal,” Heinrich wrote — a belief shared by Jigar Shah, the former head of the DOE Loan Programs Office, which issued the conditional loan guarantee in the waning days of the Biden administration. “I am concerned that the federal government is eroding what little trust the private sector has in our ability to be reliable partners.”
That trust is eroding rapidly, Heinrich said. The project has been in the works for more than a decade and is one of only a handful of major transmission developments underway in the United States.
The Grain Belt Express would support gigawatts’ worth of new wind and solar projects — energy sources that are under attack by the Trump administration.
The new GOP megalaw is expected to cut new solar, wind, and battery deployments by more than half just as power demand is rising. Last year, clean energy made up 96% of the new energy capacity being added to the U.S. grid.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration has unleashed a flurry of anti-wind and anti-solar actions in the past month that threaten to subject wind and solar projects to burdensome and potentially insurmountable Interior Department reviews, block development on federal lands under “capacity density” restrictions, and potentially put a halt to already permitted wind farms on land and at sea.
The move to block the Grain Belt Express is part of this broader attempt to slow renewable energy — just when the country can least afford it, Heinrich said.
This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.
Why did you decide to write the letter to Energy Secretary Chris Wright?
Secretary Wright, before he was secretary, said numerous times to our committee [the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources] that he was going to follow the law, and a conditional loan guarantee is a legally binding commitment.
It’s as if you go to your bank and you get preapproved for a mortgage, then when you show up for the closing, you expect the bank to make good on that. And that’s what we had here.
The reality is, we need this administration to follow the law and make good on commitments that have been made so that there is predictability in the market. We also need every cheap electron we can get right now, and so if you put these big infrastructure projects in jeopardy, what you’re really doing is passing along more costs to consumers.
Have you received any response from DOE?
Not yet.
Do you expect you’ll eventually get a response?
I certainly expect to. And if the secretary wants to be taken seriously by the Senate, then he needs to provide that information.
One of the things that really bothers me about a lot of the actions that the Department of Energy and the Department of Interior are taking right now is the sum total is creating a lot of uncertainty in the finance markets, and that flows through to create additional costs for consumers.
When you have a big transmission project like this one, there are $52 billion in energy savings over the course of the next decade, and that should be accruing to consumers. And if you put all of this in jeopardy, the real impact is that costs are going up, and then when you put all of these permits that are usually very predictable and are now uncertain, all of this is going to raise costs for consumers — for retail consumers and for commercial consumers. We’re already seeing electric rates start to rise, and I am deeply concerned that that is going to get a lot worse in the coming years because of their actions and their inactions.
You asked the department if it had analyzed the impact of canceling the loan guarantee. What do you see as the administration’s responsibility in analyzing its actions on energy policy in terms of affordability? And are they fulfilling those responsibilities?
They are not. And it doesn’t take a detailed analysis to understand that, in an environment of surging demand, if you artificially constrain supply, you’re going to be raising costs for people. And I want the American people to know that this is not an accident. They are choosing to take actions which are raising people’s electric bills.
Sen. Chuck Grassley, a Republican representing Iowa, has said he won’t be moving Treasury Department nominations forward until there’s some response from the administration regarding its actions on wind and solar tax credits. Can you tell us more about where members of Congress have power to challenge how the administration is managing energy policy?
Well, I think the confirmation process is one obvious place. This is an administration that has been very public about saying that they need more people in place to be able to execute their agenda. But unless they’re responsive to the Congress, that process is not going to speed up.
You asked the DOE for a list of all the closed loans and conditional commitments that the department is reviewing. Have you received any response?
I’ll be honest, they have not been particularly transparent or responsive on many of these issues, and that is a trend that I think does not bode well for the next several years.
Having been through a 17-year process to get one transmission line built [the SunZia line in New Mexico and Arizona], I’m also acutely aware of the jobs that hang in the balance. We’re talking about thousands and thousands of good, high-quality American jobs that are simply not going to come to fruition because this administration has a political agenda. I’ve never seen an administration so insensitive to the job implications of their actions.
The country’s biggest power market is caught in a trap of its own making — and the more than 65 million people from the mid-Atlantic coast to the Great Lakes who rely on it for electricity will pay the price.
Last week, PJM Interconnection announced a new record in its annual capacity auction, the means by which the grid operator secures the resources it needs to maintain a reliable transmission grid across 13 states and Washington, D.C. Prices increased to $16.1 billion, up from last year’s already record-setting $14.7 billion and an eightfold increase compared to $2.2 billion for the 2023 auction.
Prices would have spiked even further if not for a cap instituted as part of a settlement agreement with Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro (D) reached in April. Even so, PJM estimates that residential customers could see utility bills rise by up to 5% in the years to come, or more than $100 in annual household costs — rate hikes that will occur on top of bill increases just now starting to hit customers as the result of last year’s auction.
These spiraling costs have galvanized both Republican and Democratic governors of states served by PJM to demand immediate reforms. “With billions of ratepayer dollars and the stability of our grid at stake, it is critical that PJM take concerted, effective action to restore state and stakeholder confidence,” governors from Delaware, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Virginia wrote in a July letter to the grid operator.
But it’s unclear whether PJM can quickly solve the problems that are driving up costs. That’s because the core issue — barely any new generation capacity has been able to connect to the grid — will take years to resolve.
“You have a massive technical problem, which is the challenge to fix this broken interconnection queue and bring new resources online in a time of global uncertainty with tariffs, inflation, and supply chain issues that are slowing the construction and development of new generation resources,” Jon Gordon, a director at clean-energy trade group Advanced Energy United, said in a webinar last week dissecting the grid operator’s current predicament.
PJM isn’t the only U.S. regional grid operator struggling to get new power plants, solar and wind farms, and grid-scale batteries connected. But it has one of the worst track records, with projects taking an average of more than five years to move through the steps required to plug into the grid. Advanced Energy United gave PJM a D- score for its interconnection processes in a 2024 survey, the lowest of any U.S. grid operator.
The consequence has been a paltry amount of new generation and battery storage. PJM reported last week that about 2.7 gigawatts of new generation and “uprates” — existing projects that have augmented their capacity — had been added to its available pool of resources since its last auction. That’s the first such increase in the past four auctions, and a fraction of PJM’s roughly 180 GW of generation capacity.
Nor is PJM winning high marks for its efforts to fix its interconnection backlog. Critics say the grid operator has stalled on reforms that others have undertaken, including changes mandated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Last week, FERC ordered PJM to rework “conceptual proposals” that it said fail to meet federally mandated deadlines for implementing interconnection reforms.
In 2022, PJM froze the process for new projects seeking interconnection to deal with a backlog stretching back to the late 2010s. That backlog won’t be cleared until the end of 2026, leaving hundreds of gigawatts of prospective new supply in limbo.
“The market can’t work until the interconnection queue delay is fixed,” Clara Summers, campaign manager for the Citizens Utility Board, an Illinois-based utility customer watchdog group, said during last week’s webinar. An April study from research firm Synapse Energy Economics found that comprehensive interconnection reforms at PJM could save customers an average of $505 per year in utility bills and cut commercial and industrial electricity costs by 23% through 2040.
PJM noted in last week’s press release that it has processed more than 60% of the backlog in its interconnection queue. It also highlighted that more than 46 GW of “already-approved resources have yet to be built,” with many projects “navigating challenges outside PJM’s scope, such as permitting timelines, supply chain constraints and evolving project economics.”
Gordon pointed out that PJM’s interconnection bottlenecks have put energy developers in a very tough position. Nearly 95% of the grid operator’s backlog consists of solar, wind, and battery projects, and “many of those projects came into the queue pre-COVID,” he said.
Since then, interest rates have gone up dramatically, equipment costs have risen, and the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress have undone federal incentives and policies supporting clean energy growth. “Whatever those developers were thinking about those projects back then, the economics, everything has completely changed,” he said.
The forecasted demand for electricity on PJM’s grid has also increased enormously in the past four years. The AI bubble has driven up PJM’s projected load growth by 5.5 GW from last year’s auction, largely due to new plans for data centers in the region.
But PJM may not be applying the proper amount of skepticism to calculating future demand growth from data centers, said Abe Silverman, an attorney, energy consultant, and research scholar at Johns Hopkins University.
Many data center developers are seeking interconnection in multiple states for duplicative project proposals, he noted. Other U.S. grid operators are “doing a much better job trying to get a handle on the data center load growth,” including winnowing out speculative or duplicative requests, he said during last week’s webinar.
Without such safeguards, PJM runs the risk of overestimating the amount of new generation it will need to meet future demand, which will drive up prices, Silverman said. “If you believe the PJM load forecast, we need to add five nuclear units’ worth of generation to the market every year between now and 2030. And that’s just an enormous challenge, both financially and logistically.”
In the face of these issues, PJM has largely emphasized the need to keep fossil-fueled power plants online and has blamed state clean-energy policies for driving coal-fired power plants to close prematurely.
That argument has been echoed by Todd Snitchler, CEO and president of the Electric Power Supply Association, a trade group representing power plant operators with a preponderance of fossil-gas power plants in their portfolios.
“In recent years, a combination of state and federal policy shifts and poor market signals led to the premature retirement of essential generation,” Snitchler said in a statement after this month’s auction. “Now, as demand grows and supply tightens, we can’t ignore the consequences of past decisions, and we must accept that reliability comes at a cost.”
About 34 GW of coal capacity have retired across PJM since 2013, according to federal data. PJM’s independent market monitor forecast last year that as much as 58 gigawatts of generation will be retired by 2030.
But Citizens Utility Board has emphasized that those retirements are happening in both Republican-led states without clean-energy and climate mandates, including Ohio and West Virginia, as well as in Democrat-led states such as Maryland and New Jersey, indicating that state policies aren’t the chief driver. The main reason coal plants are closing is that they are increasingly unable to compete in energy markets against cheaper gas-fired power plants, renewable energy, and batteries.
Growing power demand is starting to slow the pace of closures. PJM noted last week that 1.1 GW of power plants have withdrawn their retirement plans since last year’s auction. PJM has also forced fossil-fueled power plants in Maryland that were set to close this year to remain open to maintain grid reliability.
The Trump administration may cite PJM’s growing capacity problems to justify using emergency federal powers to require aging fossil-fueled power plants to remain running. The Department of Energy has already used those powers to demand that a coal plant in Michigan stay open, as well as an oil- and gas-fired power plant in Pennsylvania — a move that PJM has publicly supported and that climate and consumer advocates are challenging.
At the same time, PJM has yet to advance near-term options for bringing power online quickly, Summers said. PJM’s proposal to reuse the grid connections left open at retiring plants for new resources, such as batteries, is still awaiting FERC approval, she said.
In February, FERC approved PJM’s plans to revamp another process known as “surplus interconnection service,” which allows existing projects to add new technologies to boost their grid value — for example, adding batteries to wind and solar farms. But the changes have not yet led to new capacity being brought into the market, Summers said.
Meanwhile, PJM’s attempt to fast-track new gas-fired generation won’t help in the near term, Summers said. In May, the grid operator announced 51 new projects selected through its Reliability Resource Initiative, which allows projects not already in the interconnection queue to propose additional resources to meet capacity needs. But most of the 9.4 GW of capacity secured through that process — and all of the newly built gas-fired power plant capacity — isn’t scheduled to be online until 2030 or later.
That’s not surprising. Major manufacturers have reported multiyear backlogs for gas turbines, restricting developers’ ability to add more capacity beyond what’s already in the works. These bottlenecks are likely to hamper similar fast-track efforts being undertaken by grid operators Midcontinent Independent System Operator and Southwest Power Pool.
Accelerating resources that can actually be built in the next two years — like solar and batteries — would be a better strategy to reduce costs, Silverman said.
“Prices are increasing right now because we don’t have enough supply,” he said. “We really have choked off that next generation of projects that should be coming in and taking those positions in the market.”
Five years ago, B2U Storage Solutions proved that old EV batteries could hook up to the grid to store clean energy, safely and cheaply. Now the company is taking the concept to Texas.
B2U just broke ground on a second-life grid battery project in Bexar County, near San Antonio, the company told Canary Media. In the next 12 months, B2U will complete four projects in the region, totalling 100 megawatt-hours of storage, CEO Freeman Hall said. The move marks a major expansion for the scrappy innovator, at a time of increased interest in the value of used EV batteries.
On paper, it makes perfect sense: Putting old EV batteries to work on the grid tackles the waste stream created by the growing adoption of EVs while expanding clean energy storage at a discount compared to brand-new lithium-ion batteries. But delivering on the concept efficiently and safely is much harder in practice, and after years of trying, the industry has only installed a handful of utility-scale grid batteries.
B2U stores up to 28 MWh at its first project, in Lancaster, California, and also developed two other smaller facilities in that state. Another company, Element Energy, built a record 53-MWh second-life storage plant in Texas last year. Earlier this summer, lithium-ion recycling startup Redwood Materials beat that record: It unveiled a second-life battery business that includes a 63-MWh storage plant to serve an on-site data center in the Nevada desert.
B2U’s new portfolio won’t set any individual records, but it could prove out the repeatability of the second-life model. In developing for the Texas market, B2U focused on areas near population centers that face transmission constraints. It designed the projects as 10-MW systems with a little over two hours of discharge at full capacity, allowing them to qualify for a fast-track permitting program in the grid managed by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, or ERCOT.
Once built, the batteries can arbitrage from cheap hours when the state’s massive solar fleet is cranking to peak-demand hours when electricity prices shoot up. Batteries, with their ability to instantly inject or absorb power, can also compete to provide various other forms of grid-stabilizing services in the ERCOT markets.
“Texas has been a very strong market with ever more volatility,” Hall said. “And that’s what storage does well, is take advantage of volatile conditions.”
The expansion draws on the company’s five-year track record of operating second-life batteries on the grid, and making money at it.
One lingering question for the sector has been how long the previously worn-down packs would survive when used for daily charging and discharging. The Lancaster project was designed to eke out 2,000 cycles from its initial batch of early Nissan Leaf batteries, Hall said; those packs have now exceeded that target.
Crucially, the equipment has not required much upkeep: Of the 2,000 battery packs that B2U operates so far, technicians have only had to pull out a single-digit number of them for maintenance, Hall noted. That has given the company confidence to dispatch the batteries a bit more intensely.
“We’ve got all these guardrails and real-time monitoring of the batteries that ensure safety, but we’re not as concerned about degrading the batteries,” Hall said. “They’re turning out to be pretty strong workhorses that don’t degrade as people thought they might.”
B2U said its first project, built in 2020, cost about $200 per kilowatt-hour, which at the time offered a roughly one-third discount compared to new battery systems. Today, new lithium-ion enclosures have come down to $150 to $180 per kilowatt-hour, Hall said, and B2U can deliver at half that rate based on the savings from used batteries. Accounting for additional costs associated with permitting, interconnection, and installation, a finished project comes in 30% to 40% cheaper than a new lithium-ion facility would, he added.
B2U has gotten this far with just $20 million raised in an extended Series A funding round, and another $8 million from the founders and friends. Hall built his California projects on the company’s balance sheet to prove out the concept, which was quite risky for most investors at the time. Consequently, B2U has reaped all the profits from those early investments.
Now, though, B2U has far less cash to throw at its projects than newly minted second-life competitor Redwood Materials. That company was founded by former Tesla Chief Technology Officer JB Straubel, a certified celebrity of the battery engineering world who swiftly raised $2 billion to tackle battery recycling. But Hall found Redwood’s arrival onto the scene more encouraging than intimidating.
“For the North American recycler that has raised the most capital and has been hyping the recycling opportunity the most to now make a big splash and say that they believe that the repurposing market can grow faster and generate more revenue than their core business — that’s quite the validation point,” Hall said.
Going forward, B2U has raised a fund to own its operating projects with a mix of outside equity, debt, and tax equity. That means Hall can sell off the projects to the fund (although B2U will keep a stake in them), freeing up money for new business activities. This sets the company up for faster growth than if it continued to support all its projects with its own corporate balance sheet.
Still, B2U maintains a rare distinction in the cleantech-startup universe: For relatively minor funds raised, the company has built real things that generate profits. Cleantech venture capitalists have heaped far more cash on pre-revenue companies chasing far more dubious propositions.
Five years ago was like “the first at-bat of the first inning” for second-life storage, Hall said, meaning he had a lot to prove in the field to dispel investor concerns about the novel technology. He took it slow on fundraising while he tackled those proof points.
“We’ve been very disciplined in deploying capital. That tends to be viewed by investors as a good thing, but the opportunity is such a big one right now that we need to do what’s smart for shareholders — and staying small probably no longer is as smart,” he reflected. “It’s probably time for us to grow, to take advantage of the opportunity in front of us.”
Plans are in the works to build America’s first new aluminum smelters in nearly half a century. The two facilities, slated to go online in Oklahoma and possibly Kentucky in the coming years, would dramatically boost domestic production of the versatile metal if completed as planned.
But for that to happen, they will first have to secure a steady supply of electricity, at a time when AI data centers and other industrial facilities are competing fiercely for a share of the country’s limited power resources, and as the grid is strained by surging demand.
The smelters proposed by Emirates Global Aluminium and Century Aluminum would be energy hogs. Each plant is expected to produce about 600,000 metric tons of aluminum each year, requiring enough electricity annually to power the state of Rhode Island. That’s because the process of converting raw materials into primary aluminum requires hundreds of megawatts of power running at near-constant rates.
For the economics to pencil out for either facility, that power will need to be cheap. And it will need to be produced from carbon-free sources, like wind or solar, for the aluminum they produce to be more competitive on the global market, which increasingly favors low-carbon metal.
Unfortunately for American aluminum producers, both clean and affordable power are only getting harder to come by.
Electricity demand in the U.S. is rising faster than supply is forecast to grow, which is pushing up prices. Aging grid infrastructure and slow permitting timelines have long delayed the build-out of new power generation. Now the Trump administration and GOP-led Congress are creating additional financial and legal headwinds for wind, solar, and battery storage projects — the only resources that can be built fast enough to meet demand in the near term.
“With clean energy tax credits going away, we can reasonably expect the cost of electricity to go up in all markets,” said Annie Sartor, the aluminum campaign director for Industrious Labs, an advocacy organization. “That’s just profoundly challenging to aluminum facilities that are looking for electricity … especially in a moment when there’s a rush on electricity nationally.”
The deepening power crunch represents a major roadblock in the quest to reshore U.S. manufacturing.
The Trump administration recently raised tariffs on aluminum and steel imports from 25% to 50% to bolster the business case for producing primary metals domestically. It has also preserved a crucial award for Century Aluminum’s smelter that was issued in the final days of the Biden administration. In January, the Department of Energy awarded Century a grant of up to $500 million as part of a federal industrial decarbonization program, much of which has since been defunded.
But to successfully kick-start an American aluminum renaissance, the government and utilities will also need to make larger long-term investments in the nation’s ailing electricity sector, and develop tools that allow smelters to not just take power from the grid, but to help it run more smoothly, experts say.
“Ultimately, this is about energy,” said Matt Meenan, vice president of external affairs for the Aluminum Association, a trade group that supports an “all-of-the-above” approach to electricity sources.
“And until you crack that nut,” he added, “I think we’re going to have a hard time becoming fully self-sufficient for primary aluminum in the U.S.”
Aluminum companies worldwide produced 73 million metric tons of primary, or virgin, aluminum in 2024. The lightweight metal is used to make products as varied as fighter jets, power cables, soda cans, and deodorant. It’s also a key component of clean energy technologies like electric vehicles, solar panels, and heat pumps.
Producing aluminum contributes about 2% of total greenhouse gas emissions every year. The majority of those emissions come from generating high volumes of electricity — often derived from fossil fuels — to power smelters. The smelting process involves dissolving powdery white alumina in a scorching-hot salt bath, then zapping it with electrical currents to remove oxygen molecules and make aluminum.
The United States was once one of the world’s top producers of primary aluminum. In 1980 — the last year a new smelter was built — the nation had 33 operating facilities, many of which relied on cheap power from public hydropower plants. But then industrial electricity rates began to rise after the federal government restructured energy markets in 1977.
Deregulation was “the single most important factor leading to the near total demise of the primary aluminum industry,” the Aluminum Association said in a recent white paper entitled “Powering Up American Aluminum.” The U.S. industry’s downward spiral accelerated further after China joined the World Trade Organization in 2001, leading to a glut of inexpensive Chinese aluminum on the global market.
Today, just four American smelters remain operational. In 2024, they produced an estimated 670,000 metric tons of primary aluminum, or less than 1% of global production. The U.S. mainly makes secondary aluminum from scrap metal, which totaled over 5 million metric tons last year. While secondary production is growing, it can’t fully replace the need for strong and durable primary aluminum.
“There’s always going to be a role for primary aluminum,” Meenan said. “And we do think having smelters here is really important.”
Century Aluminum and Emirates Global Aluminium both say their new smelters will mark a new beginning for the U.S. primary-aluminum sector. The two facilities would together nearly triple the nation’s primary-aluminum capacity when they come online, potentially around 2030.
Century Aluminum first unveiled plans for its smelter in March 2024, after the Biden-era Department of Energy launched a $6 billion initiative to modernize and decarbonize America’s industrial base. As part of the award process, Century said its Green Aluminum Smelter could run on 100% renewable or nuclear energy and would use energy-efficient designs, making it 75% less carbon-intensive than traditional smelters.
At the time, the Chicago-based manufacturer identified northeastern Kentucky as its preferred location for the smelter, though the company was also evaluating sites in the Ohio and Mississippi river basins. More than a year later, Century still hasn’t picked a final project site for the $5 billion smelter — because it hasn’t yet locked down its power supply.
Electricity isn’t available at the fixed long-term price that smelters need to ensure profitability and pay back billions of dollars in construction costs, Matt Aboud, Century’s senior vice president of strategy and business development, said in May at a global aluminum summit in London, Reuters reported.
“We remain really excited about the project,” Jesse Gary, Century’s president and CEO, said on a May 7 earnings call. “The next two key milestones are to finalize negotiations of the power arrangements, and then following from that … we’ll be making a site selection.”
The Aluminum Association estimates that manufacturers would need a 20-year power contract at or below $40 per megawatt-hour to justify investing in a new smelter at today’s aluminum prices. Restarting the nation’s fleet of idled smelters, which represent 601,500 metric tons in primary capacity, would require a similar arrangement.
Currently, power-purchase agreements for U.S. renewable energy projects are in the range of $50 to $60 per MWh — a significant difference for these power-hungry facilities. Tech giants like Microsoft have signaled their willingness to pay north of $100 per MWh for electricity from nuclear and fossil-gas plants to fuel their data centers, giving those firms an advantage over price-sensitive buyers in the race for electricity.
Meanwhile, in Oklahoma, Emirates Global Aluminium is advancing its $4 billion smelter project with the promise of significant financial support from taxpayers and utility customers.
The Abu Dhabi-based conglomerate in May signed a nonbinding agreement to build the smelter with the office of Republican Gov. J. Kevin Stitt, a deal that includes over $275 million in incentives, including discounts for power. The manufacturer and governor’s office are working to establish a “special rate offer” from the Public Service Co. of Oklahoma — a subsidiary of utility giant AEP — for the new facility.
Simon Buerk, EGA’s senior vice president for corporate affairs, said that Oklahoma’s “energy abundance” was a key factor in selecting the state for the new aluminum smelter.
More than 40% of Oklahoma’s annual electricity generation comes from wind turbines spinning on open prairies, while about half the state’s generation comes from fossil-gas power plants. Last month, the Public Service Co. acquired an existing 795-MW gas plant just south of Tulsa to meet the rising energy needs of its customers, including potentially EGA.
Buerk said EGA and the utility are in “advanced negotiations” to finalize a competitive power contract. One option the groups are considering is a tariff structure that gives the smelter dedicated long-term access to a proportion of renewable energy, equal to 40% of the smelter’s needs. The smelter’s annual power mix “will be based on EGA’s decarbonisation objectives, market dynamics, and market demand for low-carbon aluminum,” he said by email.
Outside the United States, nearly all primary aluminum smelters receive some form of government backing in the countries where they operate — typically by ensuring access to affordable energy, said Sartor of Industrious Labs.
She pointed to Canada, the largest supplier of U.S. aluminum imports. Smelters in Quebec draw from the region’s abundant hydropower resources, which are operated by the government-owned entity Hydro-Quebec. The price of electricity that producers pay is often tied to the price of aluminum on commodities markets, so that smelters pay less during lean times and more when the market recovers.
“The industry functions through government support all over the world, and we should be looking at those models and finding one that fits us here,” said Sartor.
Manufacturers and utilities can also structure power-supply agreements that enable smelters to benefit, rather than strain, the grid, said Anna Johnson, a senior researcher in the industry program at the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.
“When we think about how to address the challenge of procuring large amounts of clean power, one of the first tools we think about is, what can we do on the demand side to mitigate that load and make sure that the demand of these facilities is avoiding times of peak stress?” she said.
In New Zealand, for example, Rio Tinto’s Tiwai Point smelter receives financial incentives to curb its electricity use — and therefore lower its aluminum production — during dry seasons, when hydropower resources can become critically low. In Australia, the aluminum giant Alcoa is participating in a program that turns one of its smelters into an emergency resource when the grid is overly stressed. The Australian government pays Alcoa to halt production on some of its aluminum-making potlines for about an hour at a time.
In the U.S., other types of industrial plants — including a titanium-melting plant in West Virginia — are using behind-the-meter solar power and battery storage systems, so that the facilities are primarily drawing from the electrical grid only during off-peak hours.
Strategies like these that reduce electricity rates are especially crucial now that the development of cheap, renewable energy is set to slow in the United States. But manufacturers will still need access to new carbon-free electricity sources in order to produce the cleaner aluminum that customers are increasingly demanding, Sartor said.
“When [companies] build a new facility, they’re building it for 50 or 100 years,” she said. Even as the Trump administration winds back the clock on U.S. climate action, smelters “need to find clean power as a matter of international competitiveness.”
.svg)
