When lithium prices began to surge in late 2025, headlines warned of runaway battery inflation, threatened project pipelines, and a storage market on the brink.
Then something unexpected happened. Despite lithium carbonate prices rising more than 102% in six months, and lithium ferrous phosphate cell costs jumping 15% to 30%, total utility-scale BESS project capex in the United States, Germany, and China has increased by less than 15%. Even when battery cell price increases are fully passed through the supply chain, they barely register at the system level.
This disconnect reveals a deeper truth about today’s storage market cost structure. BESS capex is no longer behaving like a technology cost curve, because storage now functions as infrastructure rather than a modular technology. That shift began years ago, as balance of system and soft costs outgrew cell costs.
This has now become decisive. Batteries and hardware costs continue the downward share trend on total project cost, while soft costs – that is, permitting, interconnection, compliance, and execution – are increasingly influencing the BESS cost gap across regions. The result is a market in which costs feel unstable, not because batteries are getting expensive, but because building them has become harder, slower, and more constrained.
Battery price inflation grabs attention because it moves fast and shows up in headlines. Lithium prices spike, cell quotes rise, and the assumption follows that storage projects must be getting more expensive. But in 2026, that logic no longer holds.
Battery cells still matter, but they no longer dominate cost trends. In 2026, cells and modules account for 25% to 45% of total BESS capex, a sharp step down from the early 2020s as balance of system, interconnection, and execution costs have taken a larger share. Once those are included, cell price shocks lose their bite.
System design is also evolving in ways that soften inflation. Larger-format cells and higher capacity racks are reducing internal system complexity, offsetting some of the pressure from higher material prices. The result is not cheaper projects, but surprisingly stable ones.
Compliance, speed, execution
BESS economics are no longer defined by who buys the cheapest batteries. In the United States, Foreign Entity of Concern (FEOC) requirements tied to tax credit eligibility have pushed supply chain strategy from a procurement decision to a gating factor for project viability. Developers must now prove compliance at the facility level, manage component sourcing more explicitly, and align suppliers with financing requirements.
The cost impact rarely shows up as a higher line-item capex. In fact, recent moderation in battery prices has reflected China’s VAT export rebates, which are now being phased out. As those rebates unwind, they expose how little hardware pricing alone determines project viability. The real costs appear as delays, added risk premiums, and slower access to capital.
This shift is most pronounced in mature, capacity constrained systems. But in emerging markets across Southeast Asia, South America, and parts of the Middle East and Africa, price sensitivity remains higher, and low upfront capex continues to drive procurement decisions.
For hyperscale data centers, this shift is even more pronounced. AI-driven loads demand extreme reliability and fast deployment. Storage is treated as essential infrastructure, not a price sensitive add-on. In this context, speed and certainty matter more than marginal cost savings. As a result, data center operators are far less resistant to higher BESS prices – and are poised to become a major driver of demand in the coming years, particularly in the United States, where grid access constraints are intensifying the need for onsite storage.
The result is a widening gap between developers. Those with vertically integrated platforms, compliant supply chains, and permitting expertise can move quickly and secure financing. Those optimized for low-cost hardware are more exposed to redesigns, renegotiations, and execution risk. The batteries may be the same. The outcomes are not.
On one side are execution-led developers. They invest early in FEOC-compliant supply chains, cultivate diversified vendor relationships, and treat permitting and interconnection as core capabilities rather than administrative hurdles. They are willing to accept modest increases in nominal capex to reduce risk and financing uncertainty.
On the other side are price-led players, still optimized for the lowest possible equipment cost. They are more exposed to short offer windows, supply bottlenecks, and policy driven disruptions. In a market where delays can erase returns, that exposure increasingly separates winners from losers.
This divide helps explain why BESS deployment continues to accelerate despite rising battery prices. Global energy storage demand is expected to grow 7% from 2025 to 2026, with installations projected to expand over the next decade. The market is not stalling because batteries are more expensive, it is consolidating around players who can manage complexity.
Capability cost curve
S&P Global Energy’s view is that batteries will keep getting better, cheaper, and more standardized. Building them on time, on budget, and in compliance, might not. While the marginal impact of battery price swings can appear manageable for developers at project level, it can be far more consequential for suppliers upstream.
As the BESS market matures, traditional learning curve logic is breaking down. Hardware costs will continue to fall over the long term, but project capex will be shaped increasingly by regulation, grid constraints, and execution risk. The average cost of storage will matter less than variance between projects. That divergence also changes who absorbs volatility: developers may see only modest shifts, but system integrators without in-house cell production can see profitability compressed when battery prices move 20% to 30% in a short window.
The next phase of energy storage will be won by those with diversified and resilient supply chains, execution flexibility, and the balance sheet strength to deliver projects reliably in a constrained and politicized environment. In practice, that advantage will increasingly apply to more vertically integrated players, as they are better positioned to manage input-cost volatility, protect margins, and absorb policy-driven pricing resets across the value chain.
About the author
Paola Perez Peña is a senior principal research analyst at S&P Global’s Clean Energy Technology group, focusing on technologies and supply chain research, analytics and insights. Perez Peña has multiple years of consulting and research experience in the energy sector focusing on emerging technologies and strategy development for utility and oil and gas companies.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own, and do not necessarily reflect those held by pv magazine.
This content is protected by copyright and may not be reused. If you want to cooperate with us and would like to reuse some of our content, please contact: editors@pv-magazine.com.
By submitting this form you agree to pv magazine using your data for the purposes of publishing your comment.
Your personal data will only be disclosed or otherwise transmitted to third parties for the purposes of spam filtering or if this is necessary for technical maintenance of the website. Any other transfer to third parties will not take place unless this is justified on the basis of applicable data protection regulations or if pv magazine is legally obliged to do so.
You may revoke this consent at any time with effect for the future, in which case your personal data will be deleted immediately. Otherwise, your data will be deleted if pv magazine has processed your request or the purpose of data storage is fulfilled.
Further information on data privacy can be found in our Data Protection Policy.