50%与220千伏：绿电直连落地要过的三道门槛50% and 220 kV: Three Hurdles for Direct Green Power Connection to Overcome
结论先行：制度已就位，卡点在物理与数据
讨论绿电直连，很容易把它简化为“新能源就近供给用户”，从而得出“政策支持、前景广阔”的笼统结论。但如果把政策文件与项目实际进展放在一起看，会看到更清晰的结构：制度框架在两年内已经基本补齐，而落地瓶颈并不在规则，而在物理条件与数据能力。
制度侧的进展是明确的。2025年5月，国家发展改革委、国家能源局印发《关于有序推动绿电直连发展有关事项的通知》（发改能源〔2025〕650号），首次在国家层面明确了绿电直连的定义与合规路径；2025年9月发布《关于完善价格机制促进新能源发电就近消纳的通知》（发改价格〔2025〕1192号），明确了输配电费、系统运行费等价格机制；2026年5月又印发《关于有序推动多用户绿电直连发展有关事项的通知》（发改能源〔2026〕688号），将绿电直连模式从“一对一”拓展至“一对多”，适用范围从单一法人扩展至多个不同法人实体，并拓展了工业园区、零碳园区、增量配电网等多种应用场景。2026年3月，绿电直连被写入政府工作报告。
落地侧的数据则呈现出反差。截至2026年6月，全国已有24个省份印发或编制了绿电直连配套政策，批复的绿电直连项目预计超过400个、对应新能源总装机规模超过3000万千瓦，但正式开工的项目较少。与此同时，内蒙古自治区已建成“自我消纳、自主调峰”项目115个、新能源规模2425万千瓦，已批复绿电直连项目（含6类市场化项目）152个、新能源装机规模达6321万千瓦。批复与开工之间的落差，指向的是物理条件与数据能力的约束，而这三道门槛恰好可以逐一拆解。
第一道门槛：50%的绿电直供比例怎么算出来
零碳园区的绿电直供比例不低于园区用电量的50%，这是名单的准入要求，也是第一道门槛。这道门槛看起来是一个比例指标，实际上是一个容量匹配问题——要满足50%的直供比例，必须有相应的风光装机与园区的负荷曲线相吻合，而不是简单地按用电量乘以50%配置电源。
容量匹配的难点在时间维度上。风光出力的时间分布与园区负荷的时间分布并不一致：光伏出力集中在白天，而工业园区负荷通常全天连续；风电的出力与风速相关，具有明显的随机性。当电源的出力曲线与负荷曲线不重合时，即使年度发电量足够，也无法在需要的时间点提供电力，此时要么建设储能进行时间平移，要么从电网购入电力，而后者会降低绿电直供的物理比例。这就是为什么绿电直连政策强调“通过专用线路和变电设施向用户供给绿电”，物理直连是确保供给量的技术基础。
从这一约束出发，可以推导出园区的合理配置逻辑。对于负荷曲线平稳的园区（如算力中心），配置一定比例的风电与储能较为合适，因为算力负荷的连续性与风电的出力特性可以在日尺度上较容易匹配；对于负荷集中在白天的园区（如装备制造的单一班次产线），配置光伏更为经济，但夜间的用电仍需通过电网或储能解决；对于负荷波动大的园区（如冶炼、化工），则需要更大比例的可调节电源与储能。园区负荷曲线的形态，实际上决定了绿电直供50%的实现路径与成本。
这也解释了为什么政策明确“优先支持算力设施、绿色氢氨醇等新兴产业和未来产业开展绿电直连”。算力设施的负荷连续稳定、对绿电的需求刚性，且具备一定的柔性调节能力，是绿电直连最理想的负荷类型；氢氨醇项目本身以新能源为原料、以电解槽为可调节负荷，天然适配波动性电源。反过来看，这两类场景被优先支持，说明政策的取向是让绿电直连在“技术适配度最高”的场景中先跑通，而非全面铺开。
第二道门槛：220（330）千伏的电压等级
第二道门槛是一个具体的数字：绿电直连项目中的新能源不直接接入公共电网，通过专用线路和变电设施向单一或多个用户供给绿电，接入电压等级不得超过220（330）千伏。这个数字看起来是技术参数，实际上决定了哪些项目能够纳入绿电直连范围。
内蒙古的案例给出了这道门槛的实际影响。内蒙古自治区工业和信息化厅在答复人大代表建议时说明：根据绿电直连政策，绿电直连项目中的新能源不直接接入公共电网，接入电压等级不得超过220（330）千伏；因此包风四500千伏输电通道等已纳入国家规划的500千伏输变电项目属于公网项目，无法纳入绿电直连范围。也就是说，园区若希望使用已纳入国家规划的500千伏通道输送的绿电，这条路径无法通过绿电直连实现，只能通过常规的绿电采购。
这一约束的政策含义需要仔细辨析。绿电直连制度的设计初衷是建立电源与用户之间可溯源的物理连接，而接入电压等级的限定，正是为了保证这种连接的“专用性”——电压等级越高，输电网络越接近公共基础设施，直连与公网供给的边界就越模糊，溯源的可靠性就越低。因此220（330）千伏的限定不是技术限制，而是溯源性的制度保障。理解了这一层，就能明白为什么政策宁可把500千伏项目排除在外，也不放宽电压等级要求。
由此带来的一个现实问题是：绿电资源与负荷中心之间往往需要远距离输送，而远距离输送通常依赖高电压等级通道。当高电压等级通道被排除在绿电直连之外时，园区解决绿电供给的路径就只剩下就近建设电源或使用增量配电网。这解释了政策为什么同时强调“支持绿电直连、新能源就近接入增量配电网等绿色电力直接供应模式”——增量配电网成为高电压等级通道之外的补充路径。截至2026年1月，内蒙古已印发促进增量配电网高质量发展的若干措施与增量配电业务管理细则，明确了规划、建设、运行等规范，园区内用电企业可根据政策申请建设绿电直连项目。
第三道门槛：小时级匹配与碳边境调节机制的核算口径
第三道门槛是数据能力要求。出口企业在向欧盟提交核查证据时，除物理直连关系外，还需满足小时级绿电发用匹配数据的要求；而在欧盟碳边境调节机制现行规则下，国内绿证暂未被接纳作为生产用电的减排凭证。这两条要求叠加，构成了对企业的数据能力门槛。
小时级匹配的技术含义是：企业不仅需要证明年度绿电采购量等于或超过用电量，还需证明在每个小时内绿电的发电量与用电量相匹配。这一要求把绿电供给从年度平衡问题细化为逐时平衡问题，其直接后果是必须配置储能或可调节电源来填补时间缺口，否则即使年度绿电富余，也无法通过小时级匹配的核查。北京经开区披露的路径说明了这一点：在园区外选址建设风机和光伏电站，通过专用线路和变电设施将绿电直接输送至园区企业使用；该模式既符合国家关于绿电直连项目自发自用比例的要求，也满足零碳园区绿电直供比例不低于50%的建设要求。
绿证国际互认的缺位则带来了另一层影响。在现行规则下，国内绿证暂未被接纳作为生产用电的减排凭证，这意味着企业通过购买绿证实现“账面绿电”的路径在欧盟核查中不被认可，只有物理直连的可溯源绿电才具备证据效力。这一差异把绿电采购分成了两类：以国内考核为目标、可购买绿证的路径，与以出口合规为目标、必须物理直连的路径。两类路径的成本不同，前者低但国际效力有限，后者高但可满足核查要求。零碳园区的绿电直连价值，正是在后一条路径上体现出来的。
三项要求对项目的反向约束是清晰的：绿证核销约束电力来源、电解制氢的实时匹配约束生产环节、碳源必须是生物质或直接空气捕集约束原料环节——这是绿色燃料项目面临的认证要求，与绿电直连的出口合规要求属于同一逻辑：可溯源、可核查、可逐时对应。数据能力因此从辅助工具变成了准入门槛。相关技术的商业价值也在随之上升，公开路径分析显示，已有系统接入气象、电价与设备状态的三维模型用于预测制氢成本，成为风光氢项目融资的必备附件，可降低银行风险溢价30至50个基点。
三道门槛背后的成本分配
把三道门槛放在一起，可以看到它们的成本承担机制并不相同，这决定了各方的推进动力也存在差异。
第一道门槛（绿电直供50%）的达标成本由园区与企业承担。要满足比例要求，园区需要配套建设风光与储能或引入增量配电网，这部分投资的责任主体是园区平台公司与入园企业。企业愿意承担这一成本的前提，是其产品因绿电获得出口合规能力或溢价——这是一笔可以计算的商业账。
第二道门槛（电压等级）的约束成本主要由电网与政府部门承担。当500千伏通道无法纳入绿电直连时，需要新建220千伏专用线路或推进增量配电网建设；而这些工程的选址、用地与投资涉及电网规划、土地政策与地方政府的协调。内蒙古的案例表明，这类工程从纳入规划到投产的周期可能长达数年，且受生态红线约束——原拟接入通道的旭阳199万千瓦新能源项目因占用基本草原暂无法实施，直接影响通道的选址确定与建设进度。这部分成本不由企业承担，因此企业缺乏直接推动的动力。
第三道门槛（小时级匹配与核算）的成本由企业的数据能力承担。要满足逐时匹配的核查要求，企业需要建立小时级的电量计量、数据归集与核查取证体系，并可能为此配置储能或柔性负荷。这部分成本既包括硬件投入，也包括管理体系的建设。从政策导向看，这部分成本未来可能通过碳市场或财政支持部分回收——绿氢项目已纳入国家核证自愿减排量机制，可通过碳资产收益弥补成本劣势；绿电直连项目若能与碳资产机制衔接，其数据能力的投入也将获得回报。
成本分配的差异还决定了新型主体的出现节奏。腾讯新闻刊发的中国能源研究会储能专委会相关访谈指出，新型储能的新增空间来自新兴业态：人工智能算力枢纽、零碳园区、绿电直连等场景快速落地，既需储能稳定用电负荷、满足刚性绿电考核指标，也可通过源网荷储一体化模式解决绿电时序错配问题。这段话把绿电直连与储能的关系讲得很清楚——绿电直连的时序错配问题，正是储能的需求来源。三道门槛中，第一道与第三道都直接指向储能配置，这构成了储能产业的确定性增量。
研判：三条判断与三个观察指标
第一条研判，绿电直连的制度框架已经基本完备，落地瓶颈已从“规则缺失”转为“物理条件与数据能力不足”。判断依据是三份文件的递进关系：650号文（2025年5月）解决定义与合规路径，1192号文（2025年9月）解决价格机制，688号文（2026年5月）把模式从“一对一”扩展至“一对多”并拓展到工业园区、零碳园区、增量配电网等场景。制度已经覆盖了定义、价格与适用范围三个层面，而批复超400个项目、正式开工较少的反差，说明制约因素在制度之外。
第二条研判，电压等级与生态红线是当前最硬的物理约束，其解决需要电网规划与土地政策的协同，而非园区主体单方面努力。判断依据是内蒙古包头稀土新区的完整案例链条：500千伏公网项目无法纳入绿电直连、原拟接入项目因占用基本草原暂无法实施、变电站选址因此无法确定。这条链条说明绿电直连的落地与能源项目的空间布局强相关，任何单一环节的推进都可能被相邻环节限制。政策已在提供解决路径（如支持未开展电网接入工程建设的项目、因消纳受限无法并网的项目在履行变更手续后开展多用户绿电直连），但物理条件的形成需要时间。
第三条研判，可溯源绿电的稀缺性将随出口合规需求的增长而上升，其定价会从“环境价值”向“合规价值”迁移。判断依据是广东绿电交易的价格结构：10月绿电环境价值月度均价41.16厘/千瓦时，其中双边协商交易的环境价值为12.18厘、挂牌交易为50.00厘，两者相差四倍。价差的来源正是需求的紧迫程度——挂牌交易参与者需要即时满足绿电消费比例考核，议价能力弱于长协用户。当欧盟碳边境调节机制的核算规则进一步收紧、且国内绿证尚未被接纳时，物理直连绿电的合规价值会进一步显性化。
需要跟踪的三项指标分别是：第一，绿电直连项目从批复到开工的转化率，这是衡量制度是否真正畅通的核心指标；第二，零碳园区绿电直供比例中物理直连所占的比重，这决定50%这一比例的质量；第三，绿电直连与碳资产机制（CCER）的衔接进度，这决定企业数据能力投入能否获得回报。需要提示的不确定性在于：欧盟碳边境调节机制的实施细则仍在演进，国内绿证的国际互认进展存在变数，这两个变量会直接改变物理直连绿电的相对价值；同时各省绿电直连配套政策的规则细节存在差异，跨省比较时需要以文件原文为准。从产业观察的角度看，绿电直连真正的试验场不是文件的数量，而是园区里那一条专用线路能否在需要的时间点把绿电送进企业的电表——这道题一旦答对，零碳园区、绿色燃料与出口合规三条线就会在同一个物理连接上汇合。那时，绿电直连的定价逻辑将不再由政策决定，而由市场对可溯源电力的稀缺程度决定。
【评论员研判型·观点】绿电直连的制度框架已基本完备（650号文定定义、1192号文定价格、688号文扩至多用户），落地瓶颈转为物理条件与数据能力。三道门槛分别是：50%绿电直供比例的容量匹配（取决于负荷曲线与储能配置）、220（330）千伏的电压等级限制（内蒙古包风四500千伏公网项目无法纳入）、小时级绿电发用匹配与欧盟碳边境调节机制核算口径（国内绿证暂未被接纳为减排凭证）。核心判断是绿电直连的定价将随出口合规需求从“环境价值”向“合规价值”迁移，广东绿电环境价值双边协商12.18厘与挂牌50.00厘的四倍价差即为先行信号。
Conclusion first: The systems are already in place, the bottleneck lies in physical conditions and data. Discussing direct green power connection is easily simplified to ‘renewable energy supplied nearby to users,’ leading to the broad conclusion of ‘policy support and promising prospects.’ But if we look at policy documents and actual project progress together, a clearer structure emerges: the institutional framework has basically been completed within two years, and the bottleneck for implementation is not in the rules, but in physical conditions and data capabilities.
Progress on the institutional side is clear. In May 2025, the National Development and Reform Commission and the National Energy Administration issued the "Notice on Orderly Promoting the Development of Direct Green Power Connection" (NDRC Energy [2025] No. 650), which for the first time clarified the definition and compliance path of direct green power connection at the national level; in September 2025, the "Notice on Improving the Pricing Mechanism to Promote the Local Consumption of New Energy Power Generation" (NDRC Pricing [2025] No. 1192) was issued, clarifying pricing mechanisms such as transmission and distribution fees and system operation fees; in May 2026, the "Notice on Orderly Promoting the Development of Multi-User Direct Green Power Connection" (NDRC Energy [2026] No. 688) was issued, expanding the direct green power connection model from 'one-to-one' to 'one-to-many', extending the applicable scope from a single legal entity to multiple different legal entities, and broadening various application scenarios including industrial parks, zero-carbon parks, and incremental distribution networks. In March 2026, direct green power connection was included in the government work report.
The data on the ground, however, show a stark contrast. As of June 2026, 24 provinces across the country have issued or formulated supporting policies for direct green electricity connection projects. The approved direct green electricity connection projects are expected to exceed 400, corresponding to a total renewable energy installed capacity of over 30 million kilowatts, but only a few projects have officially started construction. Meanwhile, the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region has completed 115 “self-consumption, autonomous peak regulation” projects, with a renewable energy capacity of 24.25 million kilowatts, and has approved 152 direct green electricity connection projects (including six types of market-oriented projects), with a renewable energy installed capacity of 63.21 million kilowatts. The gap between approval and construction points to constraints on physical conditions and data capabilities, and these three thresholds can fortunately be overcome one by one. The first threshold: how is the 50% proportion of direct green electricity supply calculated?
The proportion of green electricity directly supplied in zero-carbon parks should not be less than 50% of the park's electricity consumption. This is a requirement for being included on the list and also the first threshold. This threshold appears to be a percentage indicator, but in reality, it is a capacity matching issue — to achieve a 50% direct supply ratio, the installed capacity of wind and solar must match the park's load curve, rather than simply multiplying the electricity consumption by 50% to configure the power sources.
The difficulty of capacity matching lies in the time dimension. The temporal distribution of wind and solar output does not coincide with the park's load distribution: photovoltaic output is concentrated during the day, while the industrial park's load is usually continuous throughout the day; wind power output depends on the wind speed and is highly random. When the output curve of the power source does not coincide with the load curve, even if the annual generated electricity is sufficient, it cannot supply power at the needed times. At this point, either energy storage must be built to shift the supply over time, or electricity must be purchased from the grid, the latter of which will reduce the physical proportion of direct green electricity supply. This is why the green electricity direct connection policy emphasizes 'supplying green electricity to users through dedicated lines and substations'; physical direct connection is the technical basis for ensuring supply.
Starting from this constraint, the reasonable configuration logic of the park can be derived. For parks with a stable load curve (such as computing centers), it is more appropriate to configure a certain proportion of wind power and energy storage, because the continuity of computing load and the output characteristics of wind power can be easily matched on a daily scale; for parks with daytime-concentrated loads (such as a single-shift production line in equipment manufacturing), configuring photovoltaics is more economical, but nighttime electricity needs still have to be addressed through the grid or energy storage; for parks with highly fluctuating loads (such as smelting and chemical plants), a larger proportion of adjustable power sources and energy storage is required. In fact, the shape of the park's load curve determines the implementation path and cost of achieving 50% direct green power supply.
This also explains why the policy explicitly states to 'give priority support to emerging and future industries such as computing power facilities and green hydrogen, ammonia, and methanol to carry out direct green power connections.' Computing power facilities have continuous and stable loads, rigid demand for green electricity, and certain flexible adjustment capabilities, making them the most ideal load type for direct green power connections; hydrogen and methanol projects themselves use renewable energy as raw materials and electrolyzers as adjustable loads, naturally suited to intermittent power sources. Conversely, the fact that these two types of scenarios are given priority support indicates that the policy aims to first implement direct green power connections in scenarios with 'the highest technical compatibility,' rather than rolling them out comprehensively.
The second threshold: Voltage level of 220 (330) kilovolts
The second threshold is a specific number: in direct green power connection projects, renewable energy does not directly connect to the public grid but supplies green electricity to one or more users through dedicated lines and substation facilities, and the connection voltage level must not exceed 220 (330) kilovolts. This number may seem like a technical parameter, but it actually determines which projects can be included within the scope of direct green power connections.
The case of Inner Mongolia illustrates the actual impact of this threshold. The Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region Department of Industry and Information Technology explained in response to proposals from National People’s Congress deputies that: according to the green power direct connection policy, renewable energy in green power direct connection projects does not directly connect to the public grid, and the connection voltage level must not exceed 220 (330) kV; therefore, 500 kV transmission and transformation projects that have been included in the national plan, such as the Baofeng IV 500 kV transmission channel, are considered public network projects and cannot be included within the scope of green power direct connection. In other words, if a park wishes to use green power delivered through a 500 kV channel already included in the national plan, this pathway cannot be realized via green power direct connection and can only be achieved through conventional green power procurement.
The policy implications of this restriction need to be carefully analyzed. The original purpose of the green electricity direct connection system is to establish a traceable physical connection between power sources and users, and the limitation on access voltage level is precisely to ensure the 'dedicated' nature of this connection—the higher the voltage level, the closer the transmission network is to public infrastructure, and the more blurred the boundary between direct connection and public grid supply becomes, reducing the reliability of traceability. Therefore, the 220 (330) kilovolt limitation is not a technical constraint, but an institutional guarantee for traceability. Once this aspect is understood, it becomes clear why the policy prefers to exclude 500 kilovolt projects rather than relax the voltage level requirement.
A practical problem brought about by this is that green electricity resources often need to be transmitted over long distances to reach load centers, and long-distance transmission typically relies on high-voltage channels. When high-voltage channels are excluded from direct green electricity connections, the only way for industrial parks to secure green electricity supply is either to build local power sources or use incremental distribution networks. This explains why policies emphasize both "supporting direct green electricity connections and allowing renewable energy to connect locally to incremental distribution networks as a green power supply model"—incremental distribution networks serve as a supplementary path outside high-voltage channels. As of January 2026, Inner Mongolia has issued several measures to promote the high-quality development of incremental distribution networks and management rules for incremental distribution businesses, clarifying regulations on planning, construction, and operation. Enterprises within industrial parks can apply to build direct green electricity projects according to these policies.
The third threshold: hourly-level matching and the accounting standards of the carbon border adjustment mechanism.
The third threshold is the requirement for data capability. When exporting companies submit verification evidence to the EU, in addition to the physical direct connection, they must also meet the requirement for hourly-level matching data of green power generation and consumption; under the current rules of the EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, domestic green certificates have not yet been accepted as emission reduction credentials for electricity used in production. The combination of these two requirements constitutes a data capability threshold for companies.
The technical implication of hour-level matching is: enterprises not only need to prove that their annual green electricity purchases are equal to or exceed their electricity consumption, but also need to demonstrate that the green electricity generation matches the electricity consumption for each hour. This requirement refines green power supply from an annual balance issue to an hourly balance issue. The direct consequence is that energy storage or adjustable power sources must be deployed to fill in the time gaps; otherwise, even if there is a surplus of green electricity over the year, it would not pass the hour-level matching verification. The path disclosed by the Beijing Economic-Technological Development Area illustrates this point: wind turbines and photovoltaic power stations are built outside the park, and green electricity is delivered directly to park enterprises through dedicated lines and substation facilities. This model both complies with the national requirements on the self-consumption ratio of green electricity direct connection projects and satisfies the construction requirement that the proportion of green electricity directly supplied to the zero-carbon park is not less than 50%.
The absence of international recognition for green certificates brings another layer of impact. Under the current rules, domestic green certificates have not yet been accepted as emission reduction credits for electricity used in production. This means that the path of companies achieving 'on-paper green electricity' through purchasing green certificates is not recognized in EU verification; only physically directly-connected traceable green electricity has evidential validity. This difference divides green electricity procurement into two categories: one aimed at domestic assessment, where green certificates can be purchased, and the other aimed at export compliance, where physical direct connection is required. The costs of the two paths differ: the former is lower but has limited international effectiveness, while the latter is higher but meets verification requirements. The value of direct green electricity connection in zero-carbon parks is precisely reflected in the latter path.
The reverse constraints of the project are clear in three requirements: the green certificate redemption constrains the power source; the real-time matching constraint of electrolytic hydrogen production constrains the production process; the carbon source must be biomass or direct air capture, which constrains the raw material stage — these are the certification requirements faced by green fuel projects. The export compliance requirements directly connected to green electricity follow the same logic: traceable, verifiable, and matched hour by hour. As a result, data capability has shifted from being an auxiliary tool to an access threshold. The commercial value of related technologies has also risen accordingly. Public pathway analysis shows that existing systems integrate weather, electricity prices, and equipment status into three-dimensional models to predict hydrogen production costs, becoming an essential attachment for financing wind-solar hydrogen projects, which can reduce the bank risk premium by 30 to 50 basis points.
Cost allocation behind the three thresholds
When looking at the three thresholds together, it is clear that their cost-bearing mechanisms are not the same, which determines that the driving forces for each party’s advancement also differ.
The cost of meeting the first threshold (50% green power direct supply) is borne by both the park and the enterprises. To meet the required proportion, the park needs to build supporting wind, solar, and energy storage facilities or introduce incremental distribution networks, and the responsibility for this investment lies with the park platform company and the enterprises entering the park. Enterprises are willing to bear this cost provided that their products gain export compliance capabilities or a premium due to green power — this is a calculable commercial cost.
The constrained cost of the second threshold (voltage level) is mainly borne by the power grid and government departments. When the 500 kV channel cannot be included in direct green power connection, it is necessary to build new 220 kV dedicated lines or advance the construction of incremental distribution networks; the site selection, land use, and investment for these projects involve coordination between grid planning, land policies, and local governments. The case in Inner Mongolia shows that such projects can take several years from inclusion in planning to commissioning, and are constrained by ecological redlines — the 1.99 million kW Xuyang renewable energy project originally planned to access the channel cannot be implemented for the time being due to occupying basic grassland, directly affecting the determination of the channel location and construction progress. This cost is not borne by enterprises, so they lack direct incentive to promote it.
The cost of the third threshold (hourly-level matching and accounting) is borne by the company's data capabilities. To meet the verification requirements of hourly matching, companies need to establish an hourly-level electricity metering, data aggregation, and verification evidence system, and may also deploy energy storage or flexible loads for this purpose. These costs include not only hardware investment but also the construction of management systems. From a policy perspective, this portion of the cost may be partially recovered in the future through the carbon market or financial support—green hydrogen projects have been included in the national certified voluntary emission reduction mechanism, allowing carbon asset revenues to offset cost disadvantages; if green power direct connection projects can be linked with the carbon asset mechanism, investments in data capabilities will also be rewarded.
Differences in cost allocation also determine the pace at which new types of entities emerge. An interview published by Tencent News with the Energy Storage Committee of the China Energy Research Society pointed out that the additional space for renewable energy storage comes from emerging business models: scenarios such as AI computing power hubs, zero-carbon parks, and direct green electricity connections are being rapidly implemented. These not only require energy storage to stabilize electricity loads and meet rigid green electricity assessment targets but can also address the timing mismatch of green electricity through integrated source-grid-load-storage models. This passage clearly explains the relationship between direct green electricity connections and energy storage—the timing mismatch of direct green electricity connections is exactly where the demand for energy storage comes from. Among the three barriers, the first and third directly point to energy storage configuration, constituting a definite increase for the energy storage industry.
Assessment: Three judgments and three observation indicators.
The first assessment is that the institutional framework for direct green power connections is basically complete, and the implementation bottleneck has shifted from 'lack of rules' to 'insufficient physical conditions and data capabilities.' The judgment is based on the progressive relationship of three documents: Document No. 650 (May 2025) addresses definitions and compliance pathways; Document No. 1192 (September 2025) addresses the pricing mechanism; Document No. 688 (May 2026) expands the model from 'one-to-one' to 'one-to-many' and extends it to industrial parks, zero-carbon parks, incremental distribution networks, and other scenarios. The system already covers three levels: definition, price, and applicable scope, while the contrast between approving over 400 projects and the relatively few that have officially started construction indicates that the limiting factors lie outside the system.
Second assessment: Voltage levels and ecological red lines are currently the strictest physical constraints. Solving these issues requires coordination between power grid planning and land policies, rather than unilateral efforts by the park entities. The basis for this judgment is the complete case chain of the Baotou Rare Earth New Area in Inner Mongolia: the 500 kV public grid project cannot be included in direct green power connections; originally planned projects cannot be implemented for the time being due to occupying basic grasslands; substation site selection therefore cannot be determined. This chain indicates that the implementation of direct green power connections is strongly related to the spatial layout of energy projects, and the advancement of any single link may be restricted by adjacent links. Policies are already providing solution paths (such as supporting projects that have not carried out power grid access construction, and projects that cannot be connected to the grid due to limited consumption can carry out multi-user direct green power connections after completing change procedures), but the formation of physical conditions takes time.
Article 3 Assessment: The scarcity of traceable green electricity is expected to increase with the growth of export compliance requirements, and its pricing will shift from 'environmental value' to 'compliance value.' The judgment is based on the price structure of green electricity trading in Guangdong: in October, the monthly average environmental value of green electricity was 0.4116 CNY/kWh, of which the environmental value for bilateral negotiated transactions was 0.1218 CNY, and for listed transactions it was 0.5 CNY, a difference of four times. The source of the price difference lies precisely in the urgency of demand—the participants in listed transactions need to immediately meet the green electricity consumption ratio assessment, and their bargaining power is weaker than that of long-term contract users. When the EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism’s accounting rules are further tightened, and domestic green certificates have not yet been accepted, the compliance value of physically directly connected green electricity will become more explicit.
The three indicators that need to be tracked are: first, the conversion rate of green electricity direct connection projects from approval to commencement, which is a core indicator of whether the system is truly smooth; second, the proportion of physical direct connection in the green electricity direct supply to zero-carbon parks, which determines the quality of the 50% ratio; third, the progress of linking green electricity direct connections with the carbon asset mechanism (CCER), which determines whether the investment in enterprise data capabilities can yield returns. The uncertainties that need to be noted are: the implementation rules of the EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism are still evolving, and the progress of international mutual recognition of domestic green certificates is variable; these two factors will directly change the relative value of physically connected green electricity. At the same time, the details of supporting policies for green electricity direct connection vary by province, so cross-provincial comparisons need to refer to the original documents.
From the perspective of industry observation, the real testing ground for direct green power connection is not the number of documents, but whether that dedicated line in the park can deliver green electricity to the company's meters at the required time—once this problem is solved, zero-carbon parks, green fuels, and export compliance will converge on the same physical connection. At that point, the pricing logic of direct green power connection will no longer be determined by policy, but by the market based on the scarcity of traceable electricity.
[Commentary Analysis · Opinion] The institutional framework for direct green power connection is basically complete (Definition set in Document No. 650, Price set in Document No. 1192, Expanded to multiple users in Document No. 688), and the bottlenecks for implementation have shifted to physical conditions and data capabilities. The three thresholds are: capacity matching for a 50% direct green power supply ratio (depending on load curves and storage configuration), voltage level limits of 220 (330) kV (projects such as Inner Mongolia's Baofeng IV 500 kV public network cannot be included), and hourly-level green power supply-demand matching and EU carbon border adjustment mechanism accounting standards (domestic green certificates have not yet been accepted as emission reduction credits). The core judgment is that the pricing of direct green power will shift from 'environmental value' to 'compliance value' in line with export compliance requirements. The fourfold price difference between Guangdong's bilateral negotiated environmental value of 12.18 cents and the marketplace listing of 50.00 cents is an early signal.
本网站摘录或转载的属于第三方的信息，目的在于传递更多信息，内容仅供参考。相关股票、投融资等资讯及分析并不代表本网站赞同其意见和对其真实性负责，不构成投资建议。
若不慎涉及侵权，请在相关内容刊发之日起 30 日内联系我们，我们将第一时间进行删除处理。
转载本网资讯请注明来源作者。本网原创文章、研究报告禁止转发。
Information excerpted or reprinted from third parties on this website is intended to convey more information for reference only. Related stocks, investment and financing news and analysis do not represent the endorsement of this website, nor does this website assume responsibility for their authenticity, and do not constitute investment advice.
If any content unintentionally infringes upon rights, please contact us within 30 days from the date of publication, and we will remove it as soon as possible.
When reprinting content from this website, please indicate the source and author. Original articles and research reports of this website may not be redistributed.
数据来源与口径说明：本平台数据与资讯均以「唯一官方口径」采集与发布，优先采用国家部委、国家统计局、海关总署、中国氢能联盟、IEA / IRENA / IMO 等官方或政府间机构公开数据；同一指标只取一个来源，不做多源拼接。数值为公开发布值，可能因统计口径、产地与发布时间不同而存在差异，仅供参考，不构成交易依据。Data sources and methodology: all data and news on this platform are collected and published from a single official source, giving priority to public data from government bodies and intergovernmental organisations such as the National Bureau of Statistics, the General Administration of Customs, the China Hydrogen Alliance, and IEA / IRENA / IMO. One indicator has one source only and is never stitched together from multiple sources. Figures are published values and may vary with statistical scope, origin and release date. For reference only; not a basis for transactions.