" Hebei adds 3 hours of off-peak electricity pricing, and cancels morning peak hours in spring and autumn — is the traditional profit model for energy storage about to collapse? "

The recent news in the energy storage sector, particularly the Hebei North Power Grid's new time-of-use pricing policy, has been making headlines: a new deep-valley pricing policy (reduced by 20% ) will be implemented for the winter's 12:00-15:00 period, while peak morning hours in spring and autumn will be directly eliminated and merged into the flat-rate period. For energy storage projects that rely on " peak-valley price differences + two-stage charging and discharging " to generate profits, this effectively compresses their returns. Many industry players are starting to worry: Is this adjustment just the beginning? Should energy storage focus on pre-metering or post-metering development in the future?

I. What exactly has changed in the new policy for northern Hebei?

Many people only know about the " 3- hour increase in off-peak electricity pricing , " but they don't understand the specific impact on energy storage.

1.  Core Adjustment: Changes in two time periods directly affect the charge/discharge strategy.

• Winter ( November to March of the following year ) : A new off-peak electricity price will be added for the period from 12:00 to 15:00 , with a further 20% reduction on top of the existing off-peak hours . Previously, the winter off-peak hours might only be 8 hours at night, but now the 3 hours at noon have also become a " super low-price charging period " ;

• Spring and Autumn ( April- May, September-October ) : The morning peak period (formerly 7:00-9:00 ) is eliminated and directly merged into the regular discharge period. Previously, there were two discharge peaks per day , " morning peak + evening peak ," but now there is only one, the evening peak.

2.  Direct impact on energy storage: from two-charge, two-discharge to one-charge, one-discharge.

The traditional profit logic for energy storage is simple: " Charge at low prices during off-peak hours and discharge at high prices during peak hours, " profiting from the price difference between peak and off-peak periods. Previously, this could be achieved in spring and autumn with " two charging and two discharging cycles . "

• First time: Charge during off-peak hours at night and discharge during morning peak hours;

• Second time: Charge during the midday off-peak (or second lowest point) and discharge during the evening peak.

Now, the morning rush hour is eliminated in spring and autumn. Although there is a deep valley at noon in winter, the spring and autumn are flat periods. Discharging only has one window in the evening rush hour, and charging can only be concentrated in the nighttime valley. This directly compresses the " two charging and two discharging " into " one charging and one discharging " .

For example, a 100MW/200MWh energy storage project used to earn two rounds of price difference per day in spring and autumn (earning 0.3 yuan per kWh), with a total revenue of 200MWh × 2 × 0.3 yuan = 120,000 yuan; now it can only earn one round, with the revenue halved to 60,000 yuan, and it still has to bear the equipment depreciation and operating costs.

II. Three Trends in Nationwide Time-of-Use Electricity Pricing Adjustments

The new policy in northern Hebei is not an isolated case. Recently, time-of-use electricity pricing policies successively introduced in provinces such as Zhejiang, Sichuan, and Guangdong all point in the same direction — the era of " easy money " from energy storage is coming to an end. Summarizing the national trend, these three signals are clear:

1.  " Flattening " of peak and off-peak periods : fewer peaks and longer off-peak periods.

Not only has Hebei Province eliminated morning peak hours in spring and autumn, but Zhejiang 's new regulations in 2025 have also shortened the morning peak hours (from 2 hours to 1 hour), and Sichuan has even directly eliminated time-of-use pricing for most periods (retaining only peak hours in July and August ). The core logic is: with the increase in new energy installations, the surge in photovoltaic power generation at midday leads to an oversupply of electricity, necessitating the extension of off-peak hours to encourage charging; while peak electricity consumption is gradually concentrated in the evening, thus suppressing morning peak demand.

2.  Off-peak electricity pricing becomes the " normalized " practice : Low-price charging periods are more concentrated.

Provinces such as Hebei, Zhejiang, and Guangdong are adding or extending off-peak electricity pricing periods, with larger price reductions (generally 20%-30% ). For energy storage, while charging costs are reduced, the discharge window is shortened, which is equivalent to " buying electricity at a low price but having nowhere to sell it at a high price , " resulting in a decrease in overall returns.

3.  Policy guidance to " de-arbitrage " : forcing energy storage to move away from a single price difference model.

From Sichuan's cancellation of time-of-use pricing to the reduction of charging and discharging windows in northern Hebei, the essence is that policies are guiding energy storage to shift from " simple peak-valley arbitrage " to " providing ancillary services such as peak shaving and backup . " Previously, energy storage relied on policy dividends to generate easy profits; now, it must create value through genuine capabilities. This is exactly the same logic behind the photovoltaic industry transformation driven by Document No. 136 .

III. The Dilemmas of Traditional Energy Storage Models

1.  Direct compression of profits: Reduced number of deposits and withdrawals + narrowing price spreads

On the one hand, the number of charging and discharging cycles has changed from " two charging and two discharging cycles " to " one charging and one discharging cycle, " directly halving the revenue per unit time. On the other hand, the peak-valley price difference in some provinces is narrowing (for example, the peak-valley price difference in Jiangsu has shrunk from 0.5 yuan / kWh to 0.35 yuan / kWh). Coupled with the reduction in the number of charging and discharging cycles, the investment payback period for many projects has been extended from 3-4 years to 5-6 years, and the expected returns may not even be achieved.

2.  Increased difficulty in project implementation: Increased policy uncertainty

Previously, the profitability of energy storage projects could be determined simply by calculating the peak-valley price difference. However, with frequent adjustments to time-of-use pricing policies, the time-of-use divisions and electricity prices change across different seasons and provinces, significantly increasing the difficulty of project calculations. For example, a company's energy storage project registered in northern Hebei Province originally calculated profitability based on a two-charge, two-release model. After the new policy was implemented, the plan had to be readjusted, delaying the construction schedule.

3.  Increased competition: More entrants dilute the price spread advantage.

As the energy storage industry gains momentum, a large influx of capital and companies has led to a fragmentation of the peak-valley arbitrage market . Furthermore , adjustments to time-of-use pricing further compress profit margins, potentially eliminating small-scale energy storage projects lacking core technologies in this round of adjustments.

IV. The Way Out for Energy Storage

The traditional peak-valley arbitrage model is unsustainable, and the energy storage industry must find new profit paths. Currently, there are two main directions in the industry: participating in the electricity market before the meter and providing comprehensive user-side services after the meter, each with its own advantages and challenges.

1.  Front-of-line approach: Participate in ancillary services and the spot market to earn " service fees ".

The core logic of pre-meter energy storage is to break away from the single peak-valley price difference, participate in grid ancillary services (frequency regulation, reserve, peak shaving) and the electricity spot market, and make money by providing flexibility services.

• Advantages : Diverse revenue streams, unaffected by peak-valley adjustments. For example, in frequency regulation services, the grid needs energy storage for rapid charging and discharging to regulate the frequency, with payments based on regulation performance, resulting in stable revenue and high profit margins; in the spot market, energy storage can charge during off-peak hours and discharge during peak hours, and can also capture the price difference profits from electricity price fluctuations.

• Challenges : High technical requirements, requiring energy storage to have rapid response capabilities (such as millisecond-level frequency regulation); high capital threshold, as front-meter energy storage projects are usually large in scale ( over 100MW ) and need to be connected to grid dispatch, making resource integration difficult.

2.  Post-table approach: Binding to the user side to provide " integrated energy services ".

The core logic of post-meter energy storage is to focus on industrial and commercial users and combine distributed photovoltaics, energy efficiency management, demand response, etc. to provide one-stop integrated energy services, rather than simply relying on peak-valley arbitrage.

• Advantages : Closely aligned with user needs, stable returns. For example, providing energy storage + photovoltaic systems for high-energy-consuming enterprises allows them to reduce electricity costs through self-consumption of photovoltaic power, while energy storage discharges during peak hours, avoiding peak electricity prices for users. Furthermore, they can participate in demand response to obtain subsidies, creating diversified revenue streams from " photovoltaics + energy storage + services " .

• Challenges : User demand is scattered, project size is small (usually below 10MW ), and scaling up is difficult; it requires in-depth understanding of users' electricity consumption patterns, high service capabilities, and puts a great test on the team's comprehensive energy planning capabilities.

• Case Study : A chemical company in Jiangsu Province has a 5MW/10MWh energy storage system and a 20MW photovoltaic system. The energy storage system not only makes money through peak-valley arbitrage, but also receives an additional 800,000 yuan in subsidies annually through demand response . The photovoltaic system has a self-consumption rate of 85% , and the overall project returns are 30% higher than those of pure energy storage .

3.  Summary: There is no absolutely optimal solution; the key lies in core capabilities.

• If there are sufficient funds, technology and power grid resources, the front-end direction is more suitable for large-scale development and has a stronger ability to resist risks.

• If you are good at user development and service, the subsequent directions are more flexible, and you can quickly implement small-scale projects and accumulate customer resources.

However, regardless of which direction is chosen, we must break away from the mindset of " simple peak-valley arbitrage " —the core competitiveness of future energy storage lies in the ability to provide flexibility, stability, and comprehensive services, rather than relying on policy dividends.

V. Finally, a couple of words:

The adjustment of time-of-use electricity prices in northern Hebei is not the end, but the beginning of the energy storage industry 's shift from " policy dividend-driven " to " market value-driven . " Just as the photovoltaic document No. 136 eliminated a group of speculators and left behind companies that truly focus on technology and the market, this adjustment in the energy storage industry will also accelerate the elimination of projects and companies that rely solely on peak-valley arbitrage and lack core capabilities.

For those who are truly dedicated to the industry, this is actually an opportunity: as policies guide energy storage back to its " regulatory function , " companies with technological advantages, service capabilities, and resource integration capabilities will stand out in the market reshuffle.