The core dispute in this case exemplifies a typical issue in the operation of long‑term environmental projects: whether, against the backdrop of rapid technological iteration, the systematic upgrade investment “beyond contractual expectations” constitutes a change of circumstances or a commercial risk. The essence of this issue lies in determining whether the upgrade investment satisfies the constituent elements of the change of circumstances doctrine—namely, whether the technological iteration was unforeseeable and whether continued performance would result in manifest unfairness—thereby distinguishing it from ordinary commercial risks. This determination directly implicates the applicable boundaries of the change of circumstances doctrine under the Civil Code in the environmental protection industry.
From a contractual interpretation perspective, the fundamental premise of the parties’ cooperation was the continued technical feasibility of the solution over the ten‑year operational period, which formed the basis of maintaining the contract. When a fundamental technological iteration occurred in the energy storage battery sector, leading to the complete phase‑out of the original battery model, the technical foundation on which the contract relied underwent a qualitative change, rendering continued performance of the original agreement practically impossible. As for statutory interpretation, the “unforeseeability” requirement under the Civil Code’s change of circumstances doctrine pertains to the unforeseeability of “specific changes,” not the foreseeability of the “existence of risks.” Even if market participants could foresee the possibility of changes in a given field, as long as the specific form, timing, and impact of such changes exceed what was reasonably foreseeable at the time of contracting, the requirement of “unforeseeability” under the doctrine may still be satisfied. In this case, the crux of the dispute lies in the parties’ failure to foresee that “the original technical solution would be fundamentally replaced,” rather than the macro‑trend of “technological iteration” itself—which satisfies the basic elements of change of circumstances.
In communications with the presiding judge, the author referred to the recently promulgated Ecological Environment Code for its reference value in this case, and this was well received. The Code’s orientation toward green development and encouragement of ecological technological innovation is also a policy background that cannot be overlooked in the adjudication. Energy storage projects, as an important component of new power infrastructure, carry a strong public‑interest attribute. If the risk of “technological iteration” were wholly shifted onto the energy storage enterprise through upgrade costs, it would create a manifestly unfair pattern in which one party bears all the losses while the other passively benefits. This would not only contravene the fairness principle enshrined in the Civil Code but might also, from a judicial guidance perspective, dampen incentives for industrial innovation. In light of the foregoing considerations, there is ample factual and legal basis to find that a change of circumstances exists in this case. An appropriately expansive application of the change of circumstances doctrine helps achieve a proper balance between the existing contractual legal order and the spirit of the Ecological Environment Code, thereby fostering positive interaction between market autonomy and judicial response.
Moreover, this case serves as a practical warning for the drafting of clauses in similar projects: the parties should pre‑agree on risk allocation mechanisms for technological upgrades, equipment replacement, and similar scenarios, so as to prevent disputes during performance.
East & Concord Partners website here.
Partner Dongdong Wang.