Q1. Could you start by giving us a brief overview of your professional background, particularly focusing on your expertise in the industry?

I have spent nine years working in the energy sector, focusing on energy storage and clean energy strategy.

I spent four years at CESC, a leading Indian utility, working in regulatory affairs and power-sector economics. After earning my MBA from IIM Bangalore, I joined the Chairman's Office at Adani Group to lead clean energy corporate strategy.

For the last four years, I have worked as a consultant at Customized Energy Services, focusing on battery storage. My projects span the entire value chain, from battery minerals and manufacturing strategy to grid integration and bid advisory for large-scale projects. I have led assignments in India and abroad, including published studies with the World Bank, LSF South Africa, and WRI India. My experience brings together technology, regulation, and strategy in the energy storage field.

 

Q2. Looking toward 2026–2030, where would you deploy capital today in the energy storage ecosystem—and just as importantly, where would you avoid despite strong narratives? Why?

Most Attractive Area for Capital Deployment (2026–2030): Grid-Forming & Stability-Enabling Software + PCS Controls

Investing in advanced grid-forming software and high-performance PCS controls is a strong choice, as global grids face new stability challenges from more renewables and growing AI-driven demand. Regulators are starting to set formal grid-forming requirements, making these skills essential for future storage projects. At the same time, advanced controls that enable fast response, voltage support, and reliable grid performance are becoming a key advantage. Because of this, software-driven value is becoming one of the most promising investment areas for the next decade, rather than just competing on hardware costs.

Least Attractive Area for Capital Deployment: Integrator-Heavy Models Without Technology Differentiation

On the flip side, companies that just assemble systems without much technical innovation are losing their appeal fast. The market has been rocked by the bankruptcy of a big integrator and a flood of cheap, generic DC-block products. This has squeezed profits and made it tough for firms that don’t have their own technology or software to stand out. These days, developers and utilities—especially in tougher markets—want partners who have a track record of reliable performance, deep grid-compliance know-how, and the ability to deliver lasting results. That leaves system integrators without a unique edge struggling to compete.

In short, capital should avoid companies that rely solely on assembling commoditized components without offering meaningful technical controls or software-driven value.

 

Q3. Where have investors misread “energy transition demand” as volume growth without pricing power—and where is pricing power genuinely emerging?

Investors have often gotten carried away by the hype around "energy transition" demand, especially in parts of the market where rapid growth hides the fact that products are becoming commodities. Take lithium-ion batteries, for example—especially LFP cells and DC-block assemblies. Chinese suppliers ramped up production so much that there’s now way more supply than demand, which has slashed profits even though more systems are being deployed than ever. Experts point out that this flood of cheap, standardized DC-block products from China has led to bankruptcies among system integrators and wiped out any pricing power for companies that don’t have something unique to offer.

The same story is playing out with stationary-storage packs: as supply chains have grown worldwide and Chinese factories keep ramping up, prices have dropped to around $60–$70 per kilowatt-hour. And with more price cuts—maybe another 10–20%—expected in 2026, it’s getting even tougher for battery makers and commodity integrators to hold onto any pricing power. The bottom line is that investors have often mistaken rising sales volumes for real economic strength in these segments, when it’s actually tough price competition—not scarcity—that sets the rules of the game.

Increasing Pricing Power

By contrast, genuine pricing power is emerging in areas tied to grid stability, advanced controls, and regulatory-driven capability gaps. As global grids strain under rising renewable penetration and AI-enabled load growth, regulators are introducing formal requirements for grid-forming inverters and system-stability capabilities—creating demand for premium PCS controls and software platforms that cannot be easily commoditised. Markets such as the US and Europe, facing stringent compliance rules and complex working environments, are focusing on high-performance, safety-proven, and grid-validated systems, where experienced providers command higher pricing. In these segments, the scarcity of proven, compliant, and reliable grid-forming solutions yields durable pricing power, precisely the opposite of commoditised hardware manufacturing.

 

Q4. In markets like India and South Africa, which storage use cases have moved from pilot to bankable scale—and which stalled despite policy support?

India — Standalone Storage for Grid Services & Peak Management

India’s storage market has moved quickly from small pilot projects to major, large-scale deals—especially for standalone battery systems that help with peak demand, grid balancing, and other grid services. Just in the first quarter of 2025, there were 6.1 GW of standalone storage tenders, making up nearly two-thirds of all utility-scale storage deals. That’s a real sign that storage is now seen as a bankable investment, thanks to government incentives and falling battery prices. With the Central Electricity Authority expecting the country will need 47 GW of battery storage by 2030, utilities are racing to roll out longer-duration projects, making large-scale front-of-meter storage a credible, financeable solution across India.

South Africa — Utility-Scale BESS for Load-Shedding Relief & Grid Stability

South Africa has transitioned from demonstration projects to utility-scale BESS via dedicated IPP procurement programmes. The first national Battery Storage IPP Programme selected 360 MW of preferred bids, now entering PPA negotiations, and a second 1,200+ MW tender is planned – a clear validation that multi-hour BESS for peak support, grid stability, and renewables integration is now bankable under the country’s load-shedding crisis.

Use Cases That Stalled or Remain Non-Bankable

India — Non-FDRE RE-Paired Storage (Rooftop/Distribution-level + Storage)

Even though there’s a lot of policy attention, RE+Storage hybrids that aren’t part of FDRE structures have struggled to take off. The economics just aren’t as strong, and delays or cancellations—often because of supply-chain hiccups or uncertainty around PPAs—are common. According to IEEFA, these challenges are persistent, especially for hybrid or non-firm RE+ESS projects that don’t have guaranteed revenue. On top of that, behind-the-meter battery systems for commercial and industrial customers are still a niche play, held back by complicated tariffs and the lack of a robust market for extra grid services.

South Africa — Hybrid RE + Storage in RMIPPPP (Risk Mitigation)

Hybrid renewable + storage projects under the RMIPPPP have struggled to reach closure despite policy intent. The IEA notes that while BESS-only tenders progressed, hybrid RE+storage projects stalled because several bidders failed to meet performance, financing, or technical commitments under the strict risk-mitigation framework. This shows that complex multi-technology hybrids, despite policy push, remain riskier and slower to scale compared to pure-play BESS projects procured under dedicated tenders.

 

Q5. How realistic is supply-chain diversification away from China in the next cycle—and which parts of the battery stack are hardest to localize profitably?

Diversification is realistic but will be partial and uneven across the value chain. China's lead is too entrenched for complete decoupling in the next decade.

The parts moving fastest are downstream: cell assembly and pack integration can be localized relatively easily with policy support and capex incentives, as we're seeing in India, the US, and Europe.

The real bottleneck is the midstream - specifically precursor chemicals like pCAM and CAM. This is where China has an almost insurmountable advantage: they control about 75-80% of global cathode active material production, and it's extremely hard to replicate profitably. The challenge isn't just capital intensity - it's also process know-how, chemical engineering talent, and feedstock integration. In the work I did on precursor materials strategy for India, we found that even with technology licensing from Asian or European partners, the economics only work at a significant scale and with sustained policy support.

Anode materials, particularly processed graphite, face similar issues. China processes more than 90% of the world's battery-grade graphite.
Upstream mining diversification is happening; Australia, Canada, and Latin America are scaling up. But refining capacity still routes back to China in most cases.

By 2030-32, we'll see regional cell manufacturing hubs outside China. But for critical midstream inputs such as precursors and processed anode materials, China will likely retain a 50-60% market share. The hardest parts to localize profitably are those chemical processing steps in the middle of the value chain.

 

Q6. Among lithium-ion chemistries and emerging alternatives, which technology bets have proven resilient across cost, safety, and supply constraints—and why?

LFP (lithium iron phosphate) has been the clear winner, especially for stationary storage. It's proven resilient across all three dimensions.

On cost, LFP is now 20-30% cheaper than NMC on a per-kWh basis. It uses iron and phosphate instead of nickel and cobalt, so you're not exposed to the same supply chain volatility. On safety, it's chemically more stable—lower thermal runaway risk, which matters enormously for grid-scale installations. And on supply constraints, it sidesteps the entire cobalt-nickel complex that's concentrated in the DRC and Indonesia. We're seeing this play out globally. In India, virtually every utility-scale tender now specifies LFP. China's been ahead on this; BYD's Blade Battery scaled LFP even for EVs. The Western market initially resisted due to lower energy density, but that gap is narrowing with cell-to-pack innovations.

NMC chemistries, particularly high-nickel variants like NMC 811, still dominate premium EVs where range matters, but they're vulnerable on all three fronts: higher cost, thermal management complexity, and precursor supply bottlenecks.

Among emerging alternatives, sodium-ion is the most interesting near-term bet. It completely eliminates lithium dependency, uses abundant materials, and the cost curve looks promising. But it's still early; maybe 4-5 years from commercial scale.

For prolonged-duration applications beyond 4-6 hours, I think flow batteries, particularly vanadium redox, remain compelling for specific use cases, though the economics only work at the utility scale with anchor off-take agreements.

Q7. From your vantage point, what are some important questions to be asked to senior management to understand the digital foundation growth and margins?

That's slightly outside my core expertise in energy storage strategy. In energy storage specifically, I'd ask about digital twin capabilities for asset optimization, predictive maintenance, reducing O&M costs, and whether analytics platforms are creating new revenue streams beyond hardware. But I'd like to better understand the specific digital foundation context which you're referring to.