The return of negative prices: Battery revenues in February 2026

For most of the month, conditions remained firmly in a winter regime: strong wind generation kept prices low, but relatively stable, with spreads distributed across the day and limited volatility compared to January.

Toward the very end of the month, however, the picture began to change. On February 27 and 28, increased solar feed-in pushed day-ahead prices into negative territory for seven consecutive hours around midday. It was the first negative price event since the brief 2.5-hour dip on New Year’s Day – pointing to an emerging seasonal shift.

For battery storage, this transition signals a shift in the trading profile: away from stable wind-driven spreads distributed across the day, toward more concentrated midday charging windows with deeper price troughs – and with that, rising demands on forecast accuracy and timing.

February in numbers

To assess how these changing conditions translated into battery revenues, we evaluated simulated earnings for a representative 10 MW / 20 MWh stand-alone battery in Germany. As in previous months, we benchmarked isolated spot and ancillary strategies against a forecast-based multi-market optimization approach.

Spot market revenues reflected the overall compression in spreads. Continuous Intraday once again led with €6.3k per MW, followed by Day-Ahead at €3.2k and Intraday Auction at €2.8k per MW. A stacked wholesale strategy – combining all three – reached €7k per MW, down from €8k in January.

Ancillary services showed a more differentiated picture. FCR remained stable at €4k per MW. Within aFRR capacity, positive reserve reached €7.9k per MW, while negative capacity declined to €2.4k per MW, reflecting increasingly asymmetric system needs during shorter oversupply periods. Stacked aFRR capacity came in at €5.2k per MW, while aFRR energy dropped to €1.6k per MW, indicating a lower overall activation intensity than in January.

In this environment, the suena energy Trading Autopilot achieved €8.2k per MW. At the same time, the Autopilot outperformed spot benchmarks by 28–193% and the stacked intraday benchmark by 14%, demonstrating robust value capture across a wider range of market conditions.

Behind the shift

While solar began to shape price signals toward the end of the month, February’s market character remained firmly defined by one dominant force: wind. With renewable energy reaching a 54.8% share –  a solid level for a winter month – and average spot prices falling to €96.6/MWh, down 12.2% from January, the market increasingly moved into a supply-driven regime. The only pronounced price spike occurred on February 25, when wind generation fell short of day-ahead forecasts, triggering a short-term supply gap that lifted prices to around €250/MWh in the morning.

For most of the month, however, such deviations remained the exception. Strong and relatively predictable wind output suppressed prices without creating prolonged oversupply conditions, resulting in compressed but still accessible spreads across the day. It was only toward the end of February that this pattern began to shift, as rising solar feed-in introduced more concentrated periods of oversupply and increasingly asymmetric price signals.

This transition was also evident in balancing markets. With oversupply occurring in shorter, more pronounced windows, the system’s need for upward flexibility increased –  directly supporting positive aFRR capacity, while limiting opportunities on the negative side.

From winter stability to spring complexity

February’s market regime offers an early preview of what spring may bring. With negative prices now appearing as early as February – a pattern absent in February 2025 – their seasonal window is expanding. As solar capacity continues to grow and daylight hours lengthen, midday oversupply windows are likely to become more frequent.

For battery strategies, this creates major opportunities, but only for those able to manage both sides of the asymmetry simultaneously across spot, intraday, and balancing markets. Static or single-market approaches will increasingly struggle to keep pace.

At the same time, external risk factors are becoming more pronounced. By the end of February, geopolitical tensions – particularly around the Middle East and potential disruptions to gas and oil supply routes – were already beginning to influence forward price expectations. As these dynamics carry into spring, they introduce an additional layer of complexity for battery trading, where renewable-driven price patterns increasingly intersect with fuel-driven risk premiums.

In such a setting, where structural and external signals increasingly overlap, the ability to forecast accurately and dynamically reposition across markets becomes even more critical.