Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Power Data Storage

Texas Is About To Overtake California In Battery Storage (electrek.co) 168

Posted by BeauHD from the what-to-expect dept.
U.S. battery storage installations hit a record 57.6 GWh in 2025, and Texas is now poised to surpass California as the nation's largest storage market in 2026. Electrek reports: According to the US Energy Storage Market Outlook Q1 2026 from the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) and Benchmark Mineral Intelligence, installations are now four times higher than totals from just three years ago. The US had a total of 137 GWh of utility-scale storage installed as of 2025, plus 19 GWh of commercial and industrial systems and 9 GWh of residential storage. Analysts expect the growth streak to continue. More than 600 GWh of energy storage is projected to be deployed nationwide by 2030, even as the Trump administration targets clean energy industries.

Two-thirds of utility-scale storage installed in 2025 was built in red states, including nine of the top 15 states for new installations. Texas is projected to surpass California as the country's largest battery storage market in 2026. Standalone battery projects accounted for nearly 30 GWh of new capacity in 2025, while solar-plus-storage installations made up about 20 GWh. Residential storage deployments reached 3.1 GWh last year, a 51% increase year-over-year. Analysts say virtual power plant programs in states such as Massachusetts, Texas, Arizona, and Illinois are helping drive adoption by reducing costs and easing strain during peak demand periods.

The supply chain is shifting to support the boom. In 2025, some battery cell manufacturers pivoted production from EV batteries to dedicated stationary storage cells, converting existing lines and adjusting future plans. Lithium-ion cell manufacturing for stationary storage reached more than 21 GWh in 2025, enough to power Houston overnight, according to SEIA's Solar and Storage Supply Chain Dashboard. Meanwhile, US factories now have the capacity to manufacture 69.4 GWh of battery energy storage systems annually.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Texas Is About To Overtake California In Battery Storage More

Texas Is About To Overtake California In Battery Storage

Comments Filter:

  • That should irk (Score:4, Funny)

    by Barsteward ( 969998 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2026 @03:11AM (#66007050)
    The Orange One, a red state turning more green than a blue one

    • Now it's just the smart choice. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by stooo ( 2202012 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2026 @03:25AM (#66007076) Homepage

      Using solar, wind, and batteries is not green any more.
      Now it's just the obvious smart choice.
      You can easily discern who is smart, who is dumb...

      • Re:Now it's just the smart choice. (Score:4, Interesting)

        by mjwx ( 966435 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2026 @08:43AM (#66007308)

        Using solar, wind, and batteries is not green any more.
        Now it's just the obvious smart choice.
        You can easily discern who is smart, who is dumb...

        Texas ignored it's infrastructure for years to keep it cheap which has lead to regular problems... now they're just looking for the cheapest way out of the hole they dug themselves into... which is battery and solar (those cheap Chinese made PV panels). Being green is entirely accidental, if burning orphans coated in baby seal oil was cheap ERCOT would completely support it.

        I suspect they're still going to have the outages California doesn't.

        • California doesn't? Really? As a California native, I've seen rolling blackouts, wild fires taking out power lines, wind storms knocking down lines, snow storms knocking down lines, tornadoes knocking down lines, etc. PG&E was forced to invest into "green energy" and their lines weren't upgraded as they only have limited funds to do simultaneous projects. Between the governmental interference/ineptitude and just natural issues, California has had many power issues.

          • Re: Now it's just the smart choice. (Score:5, Informative)

            by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2026 @12:07PM (#66007746)

            As a California native, I've seen rolling blackouts, wild fires taking out power lines, wind storms knocking down lines, snow storms knocking down lines, tornadoes knocking down lines, etc

            What you are describing is natural disasters causing power problems. With Texas, they have been the champions of both deregulation and laissez-faire economics. This has extended to the point where their grid is largely disconnected from the rest of the US to avoid regulations.

            That was the cause of the 2021 disaster where nearly the entire state was without power for an extended period of time during harsh winter conditions. The ultimate cause was the primarily private power companies did not winterize their plants. After a 2011 winter storm nearly crippled the state grid, ERCOT (Electric Reliability Council of Texas), the state’s main regulatory body recommended all power companies winterize their plants. Since this is Texas, ERCOT can only recommend; the state makes sure it had no power to enforce it as regulation. Ten years after warning that a major winter storm could cripple the state's grid, a major winter storm crippled the state’s grid.

            • Lawsuits were filed in 2024 and 2025 alleging market manipulation by intentionally bringing down power plants for maintenance triggered the blackout, rather than a lack of regulation mandating winterized plants. While some plants did go offline for a lack of winterization (most notably to me the failure to insulate a sensor on a short section of pipe, taking half of the South Texas Project Nuclear Power Plant offline), the lawsuits claim that the blackouts were a conspiracy to raise prices, similar to what

              • While many can claim conspiracy all they want the fact of the matter is the power plants did nothing to winterize in the 10 years after the recommendation. Sometimes the modification would have been minor. No one was mandated to do it; therefore no one did it. Laziness requires less conspiracy than malice.

          • HAHAH! PG&E wasn't going to invest in new lines. What you should have said was

            'PG&E was forced to invest into "green energy" and their lines weren't upgraded -- we should have forced them to upgrade their lines long ago.'

            There is a reason our interconnect and general transmission lines are in the state they are all over the country. Power companies are putting money into the buckets which put money in their pockets -- upgrading lines over time does not do that as profitably as other placements o

          • Re: Now it's just the smart choice. (Score:4, Interesting)

            by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Tuesday February 24, 2026 @12:34PM (#66007814) Homepage Journal

            "As a California native, I've seen rolling blackouts"

            These are the only thing on this list which is comparable to the situation in Texas. PGE underdeveloped the grid to increase profits due shareholders so we couldn't get the power to where it was needed. At no time during any of the rolling blackouts have we been at full production, but due to our dumb grid we didn't know how close to capacity the distribution lines were so we had to throttle back due to heat concerns. We've since hung temperature sensors on the lines.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by v1 ( 525388 )

        considering the NUMEROUS recent cold-weather debacles, solar and batteries are probably the best responses possible. Those are the most cold-resistant things on the grid. (wind is pretty resistant too but I don't think Texas gets a lot of wind?)

        For how reliant they were on natural gas and nuclear, neither had been hardened against cold. Batteries are pretty foolproof there. And since they've voluntarily isolated their grid, batteries are the only safety net option available to them.

        • Re:Now it's just the smart choice. (Score:5, Informative)

          by nevermindme ( 912672 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2026 @10:36AM (#66007552)
          You would be 150% wrong about Texas not getting a lot of wind. The bowl of Houston sometimes gets under a tropical dome for a month or two, but that is few weeks, with a lack of breeze being a problem. Ever been to beach in Corpus? Ever Been West bound on I-40? University in Texas did the research optimizing large scale wind turbine systems about the same time the northern Germans did in the very early 90s. I think people have to travel or read a history book a bit before making statements.
          • Yep tons of wind down by the coast, which is why towns like Sinton, Gregory, and Bayside are chock full of wind turbines.

      • You can easily discern who is smart, who is dumb...

        Problem is half of us have always been able to do that, nothing is changing. There is a large misconception, mostly held by those who don’t get it, that holding a position of power or having lots of money makes you smart when it’s actually the reverse. People in those positions have everyone around them kissing their ass so they can get it too always saying how much of a genius they are and it rots their brain to the point of doing things even a child can see won’t work out.

    • Re:That should irk (Score:5, Informative)

      by LoadLin ( 6193506 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2026 @05:06AM (#66007138)

      In fact, the cheapest mix nowadays is a mix of solar, wind, batteries and natural gas for when there is a solar+wind daily deficit.

      I would expect red states to invest in renewable as any other source of energy. It's just established industries who are interested in block competency using a lot of lies about renewables.

      • batteries and natural gas for when there is a solar+wind daily deficit.

        or just even more solar and wind, so that even on "bad days" you can produce more, and who cares if you have excedent on "good days".

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Pieroxy ( 222434 )

          who cares if you have excedent

          Well, you have to get rid of the extra electricity. That's one more problem to handle.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Sique ( 173459 )

            Well, you have to get rid of the extra electricity. That's one more problem to handle.

            With Wind and Solar, this is a non-problem. Just switch them off. Works within milliseconds. It was a problem with thermal power plants (both coal and nuclear), that they could not be switched off easily, and it took hours or even days to power them down, and then again hours or days to power them up. All that water had to be boiling first, and then superheated, before you can get steam to a steam turbine.

            • Keeping the grid stable is a highly technical thing. Texas has a lot of battery storage specifically because they were the first to set up a market for FFR (Fast Frequency Response) services. Expect other states to follow their lead.

              https://marec.us/energy-storag... [marec.us]

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by Sique ( 173459 )
                Yes, but keeping the grid in balance is a different, albeit related issue. But other than thermal power plants, which are really inert and can cause the grid to oscillate, this is easier to attenuate with Solar and Wind, right because they aren't inert.

        • This will be the case some day, with perhaps some renewables we don't even think of right now thrown in. But in the next 20 years or so, it's definitely solar, wind, then gas (yes, I hate that too, but it's WAY better than coal or wood, etc) plus batteries.

          The real limit here is batteries. When we have enough batteries, we can start retiring the gas. But it's going to be an economic decision. At some point it will cost 1 cent more to keep a gas system running than to set up enough batteries to handle th

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by tragedy ( 27079 )

          or just even more solar and wind, so that even on "bad days" you can produce more, and who cares if you have excedent on "good days".

          Maybe, but there can be diminishing returns to that. I agree that you don't necessarily need fossil fuel natural gas. Ideally everything is renewable. However, the only real obstacle right now with making methane from air and water is that the relatively low efficiency of existing processes makes it cost more than methane from the ground. While work is being done on making it more efficient, there seems to be no reason why you couldn't just waste a little extra energy on making methane for storage with a fr

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by shilly ( 142940 )

        CCGT peaked plants are famously pricey. Hopefully some competition with BESS will drive down their prices, or even better, they’ll get retired in favour of BESS.

      • Well, yeah, competitors attack each other. But the important thing is that power companies are not competing in that space, they are the customers of those competitors. And power companies prefer whatever is most cost effective, because their customers only care about price and reliability.

    • Re:That should irk (Score:5, Informative)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2026 @05:51AM (#66007158) Homepage Journal

      Renewables won on purely economic terms. Cheaper than everything else, by a significant margin, and able to meet the needs of the grid.

      • Indeed, most people realise economics rules the day but that won't prevent the Orange One from getting irked

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Sique ( 173459 )
          The Orange One apparently has no idea about economics, otherwise he would not rally so much against the extraordinary ability of the U.S., to sell green printed paper in exchange for really valuable products like steel, oil, cars and electronics, while the U.S. can even set the price of the green printed paper arbitrarily.

        • Economics does rule the day, which is why we have such resistance. You need to remember that the only economics which matter in this situation are how much the executives are making. And the more it all costs, the more money is in the system, and the more money that can be skimmed. If they make the system cheaper, they make less personally.

      • While true, this raises the question: Why haven't these same economic terms resulted in a renewable explosion in blue states?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          Ideological and political reasons. China can't make the panels and turbines fast enough for demand. The US failed to develop domestic production, and then put tariffs in place on imports.

          • The same factors that affect Texas affect Blue states, like Oregon, Massachusetts, Minnesota, et al. Why aren't they experiencing a boom in renewables? It's not like Texas is exempting anybody from Federal tariffs

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

              Sorry I don't follow. I'm saying that the federal level stuff is screwing everyone.

            • The same factors that affect Texas affect Blue states, like Oregon, Massachusetts, Minnesota, et al. Why aren't they experiencing a boom in renewables? It's not like Texas is exempting anybody from Federal tariffs

              The lie is that they are not.All states have experienced a boom [climatecentral.org]. All states.

          • The only one of your responses that applies specifically to blue states, is "Ideological and political reasons." The other hinderances apply equally to red states.

            So what is it about blue-state ideology and politics, that hinders expansion of green energy? They *say* they want it and that it's important, so why is it not happening?

            Texas, by contrast, has a governor who is openly against green energy. And yet, Texas has *3x* more wind power than *any* other state, and is #1 in solar and soon, #1 in battery s

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

              I'm saying ideology and politics at the federal level. The tariffs, the lack of domestic manufacturing support, the fact that ever 4 years the policy reverses polarity and so anything like a wind farm that is approved one year can be banned the next. It's not a stable environment for developing a business.

              • You're not thinking this through.

                Federal level ideology and politics affect red and blue states equally, so that does not explain why red states are leading in green energy.
                Tariffs affect red and blue states equally.
                Federal level politics are not the differentiator. For it to be so, you'd have to argue that Federal-level politics somehow single out blue states in ways that prevent them from pursuing green energy. Good luck, that makes no sense.

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

                  Oh, I see what you are getting at. Well, I guess there is more energy investment in Texas. Could it be their isolated grid makes it even more lucrative? Or their local laws make it easier to connect large renewable installations to the grid? Or they have more land that is easy to install it on?

                  • Those are excellent questions.

                    Land is not a constraint for California, it's bigger than Montana, there is plenty of space for wind farms.

                    Personally, I believe it comes down to regulation. California has a LOT of regulation, which makes it really hard for projects to come online. Texas has comparatively few, streamlining the process, much to the governor's chagrin. And he can't really clam down on it, because the state now needs that green energy to keep the power on, especially in periods of high demand.

                    It'

                    • Land is not a constraint for California, it's bigger than Montana, there is plenty of space for wind farms.

                      Well that's very shortsighted thinking. A state having more land area within its borders is not the same as a state having available land to install wind or solar energy. A major factor is land ownership. 45% of California land is owned by the federal government compared to 29% in Montana and 1.9% in Texas. CA owns roughly 7% with private ownership accounting for 48%. Montana owns about 10% with 62% being private. The state of California cannot install wind farms on federal or private land just because th

                    • Available land is not a primary concern for California, despite your list of land ownership.

                      Regulation is a major inhibitor.

                      This article addresses both. https://www.ucs.org/resources/... [ucs.org]

                    • Available land is not a primary concern for California, despite your list of land ownership.

                      In what world is available land not a primary concern? I can't build my new shed on my neighbor's yard any more than California can build wind and solar farms on federal land.

                      Regulation is a major inhibitor.

                      Because it must be in your world. The fact that as a matter of practicality CA cannot build plants on land that isn't there seems have no place in your thinking.

                      This article addresses both. https://www.ucs.org/resources/ [ucs.org]... [ucs.org]

                      It does not. That is a lie. The article says CA needs more energy and must overcome all the obstacles to do so. Zero part of it addresses the fact that building solar and win

                    • I've got news for you, the Federal Government doesn't own "all available land" even in California. You might think California is crowded because you live in a city. But there are vast swaths of countryside that are farmed, and farmers, for the most part, are happy to allow windmills to be built on their property. For them, it's a minor inconvenience to have to plow around the windmill, and they like the thousands they get per year in lease and royalty revenue from them.

                      You are the only one asserting that la

            • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

              by Magius_AR ( 198796 )

              The only one of your responses that applies specifically to blue states, is "Ideological and political reasons." The other hinderances apply equally to red states. So what is it about blue-state ideology and politics, that hinders expansion of green energy? They *say* they want it and that it's important, so why is it not happening? Texas, by contrast, has a governor who is openly against green energy. And yet, Texas has *3x* more wind power than *any* other state, and is #1 in solar and soon, #1 in batte

          • The US makes a lot of batteries, and more production is being built out. Sadly, we did allow China to steal our solar panel industry. We let them aggressively subsidize the industry and steal our tech, so if anything, we should have tariffed it harder and sooner so that we would have that domestic capacity now.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

              Yeah, that's not the reason. China had a long term strategy, and stuck to it. Developed the technology, developed the manufacturing.

              • And I'd say you were right, but for one change. "China had a long term strategy, and stuck to it. Stole the technology, developed the manufacturing."

                One example - "The intrusion also exfiltrated data from the energy industry – including designs of solar panel and edge vacuum system technology." https://www.cbsnews.com/news/c... [cbsnews.com]

        • Re:That should irk (Score:5, Informative)

          by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2026 @12:21PM (#66007770)

          While true, this raises the question: Why haven't these same economic terms resulted in a renewable explosion in blue states?

          Because that's a lie and it has. Over the last 10 years, solar and wind generation growth: [climatecentral.org]

          • Solar generation grew in all 50 states and Washington, D.C.
          • Wind generation grew in 39 states. (A total of 42 states produce electricity from wind.)
          • Of the top 10 solar installations, blue states 4, red 6
          • Of the top 10 wind installations: 5 blue, 5 red.

          In solar and wind, it is not a blue vs red. All states have seen large growth.

        • The "blue states" are not experiencing a boom (sudden increase in) renewables because they have been building out renewables for years. No boom required, just steady growth. The headline is about how Texas is catching up to California..

          • Battery storage is the ONLY major green energy component in which Texas is "just now" catching up to California.

            Texas is far and away the wind power leader, with 3x more wind power than California, and is already the nation's leader in solar power generation.

            So my question is for you is, *why* have red states been building out renewables for years, and *why* haven't blue states been doing so (at a similar rate)? It seems counterintuitive, does it not?

            • So my question is for you is, *why* have red states been building out renewables for years, and *why* haven't blue states been doing so (at a similar rate)?

              False premise.

              Most states have been building out renewables for many years. A sudden increase in buildout in one state is not an indicator of a lack of buildout in others.

    • Why? Do you think it doesn't fit with the administrations "all of the above" energy policy?

      What a silly thing to say.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by keltor ( 99721 ) *
      Turns out "cheaper always wins" ...

  • Fuck you, PG&E (Score:2, Insightful)

    by TheMiddleRoad ( 1153113 )
    The power company has consistently worked against home installations and other projects. Also California bureaucracy is horrible. I pray to God that Gavin Newsom does not get the Democratic nomination, because I think even JD Vance could win in that contest.

  • Good (Score:4, Insightful)

    by edi_guy ( 2225738 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2026 @01:42PM (#66007998)

    I don't know why everything needs to be politicized...us versus them. Texas vs. California. Glad Texas is moving to renewables. Glad China is adding tons of solar. The climate is global so improvements anywhere are incrementally beneficial to all of us.

    My dunk against California is that with a pretty decent installed solar+battery capacity they (PG&E and their CA State govt enablers) have found a way to make the electrical rates 2nd highest in the nation, after Hawaii . It would be sooo much better to demonstrate solar+battery as a viable part of the electrical generation mix that actually reduces rates over the long term. All the shenanigans that PGE has be allowed to pursue via aforementioned State govt complicity ruins that plan.

  • Texas is now poised to surpass California as the nation's largest storage market

    So they may soon have the most electricity storage via battery... Is something supposed to happen if they do? Do they get a prize? Does something happen to California if they're no longer #1?

Slashdot Top Deals

"The trouble with doing something right the first time is that nobody appreciates how difficult it was." -- Walt West

Close