Understanding Risk-Adjusted Returns for BESS Projects

October 4, 2024

To unlock the full potential of the growing Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) market, it's crucial to correctly assess returns to attract more investment in sustainable energy projects. With the rapid evolution of energy technologies and market dynamics, investors and developers alike face challenges in evaluating risk-adjusted returns, which are essential for securing funding and ensuring the financial success of these ventures. Without accurate and comprehensive assessments, projects risk being underfunded or failing to achieve their intended outcomes, stalling progress in the clean energy transition.

Risk-adjusted returns for Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) projects measure the profitability of the investment while accounting for the risks involved. This is crucial because BESS projects can have significant financial and operational risks, such as technology failures, regulatory changes, and market volatility.


Key Factors in Risk-Adjusted Returns for BESS Projects

  1. Revenue Streams: BESS projects can generate revenue through various means, including energy arbitrage, frequency regulation, and capacity payments. Each revenue stream has its own risk profile.
  2. Cost Considerations: Initial capital costs, operational and maintenance costs, and potential costs related to technology failures or safety incidents must be factored in.
  3. Market Risks: Fluctuations in energy prices, changes in regulatory policies, and competition from other energy sources can impact returns.
  4. Technological Risks: The reliability and lifespan of the battery technology used can affect the project’s financial performance. Incidents like thermal runaways or other failures can lead to significant losses.
  5. Financial Metrics: Common metrics used to assess risk-adjusted returns include the Sharpe ratio, which measures the excess return per unit of risk, and the Sortino ratio, which focuses on downside risk.


A thorough project-level analysis is essential to accurately assess the financial viability of a BESS project. This includes evaluating technical merits, market conditions, and potential risks to optimise returns and ensure long-term success.


How We Can Help

At VPP Partners, we specialise in helping companies identify and quantify the risks associated with BESS projects. Our structured approach ensures that all potential risks are thoroughly assessed and managed. Here’s how we can assist:

  1. Risk Mapping: Mapping your opportunity against your risk appetite and risk tolerances.
  2. Initial Assessment: We conduct preliminary meetings to understand your project’s scope, goals, and context.
  3. Risk Identification: Using techniques like brainstorming sessions and expert interviews, we identify risks related to technology, market, finance, and operations.
  4. Risk Analysis: We perform qualitative and quantitative risk analysis using tools like Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) and decision tree analysis.
  5. Risk Quantification: We use statistical models and financial metrics to estimate the cost implications of risks.
  6. Risk Mitigation Planning: We develop strategies to mitigate identified risks, including preventive measures, contingency plans, and insurance options.
  7. Risk Tracking & Governance: Develop value at risk tracking and controls to ensure operations can be adapted as markets and technology changes.
  8. Implementation and Monitoring: We help implement risk mitigation strategies and monitor their effectiveness, ensuring your project stays on track.
  9. Reporting and Communication: We prepare regular reports and conduct meetings to keep stakeholders informed about risk management activities and outcomes.


By partnering with us, you can ensure that your BESS projects are not only profitable but also resilient to the various risks they may face. Contact us today to learn more about how we can support your energy storage initiatives.

 


Share on...

April 10, 2025
The body content of your post goes here. To edit this text, click on it and delete this default text and start typing your own or paste your own from a different source.
April 10, 2025
The body content of your post goes here. To edit this text, click on it and delete this default text and start typing your own or paste your own from a different source.
April 10, 2025
Here at VPP Partners we are always thinking about all things energy. The energy transition and all the moving parts are complex and looking for ways to demystify the challenges and help overcome them is one of our key drivers. Recently, VPP Partners's Energy Specialist Lachlan Ryan built a model to answer a question that he had been toying with for some time. The question was along the lines of “There must be a way to create a graph that would show the required spread between charge and discharge for a BESS in the wholesale electricity market for different capital costs to meet a desired financial metric”. It was believed that this would help to demonstrate a few different aspects relating to batteries in the NEM: Understanding Capex Requirements: Enabling the quick identification of the capex ranges required to get reasonable project returns based on expected charge and discharge prices. Highlighting Value Stacking: Highlighting that value stacking with other value streams is likely needed to meet the required financial returns. Value streams and contracting: Understanding your value streams and the potential importance of contracting your assets to firm up revenue. Trading capabilities: The requirement for competent trading capabilities to realise as much value as possible from the market. Key Assumptions The model itself had several assumptions that are highlighted as follow: Target internal rate of return (IRR): 12%, 15%, 18% Round trip efficiency (RTE): 85% (losses applied to charge cycle) Annual degradation rate: 3% Depth of discharge (DoD): 90% Cycles per day: 1.5 Project duration: 15 years Interest rate: 0% (self-funded model) The Challenge of Real-World Charging Prices A critical assumption in this model is that the battery charges at $0/MWh, which means the spread is equal to the discharge price. However, in real-world scenarios, the battery won't always charge at $0/MWh, and due to the round-trip efficiency (RTE), the actual required spread isn’t straightforward. For example: A 1MWh BESS charging at $0/MWh and discharging 0.85MWh (with 85% RTE) at $100/MWh results in a margin of $85/MWh. If the battery charges at $100/MWh and discharges at $200/MWh (maintaining a $100/MWh spread), the margin drops to $70/MWh. To achieve the same $85 margin, you would need to discharge at $217.6/MWh. This led to a redefined the problem: Instead of calculating the required spread, the result was required profit per MWh for all discharged energy. This model created the graph ‘Required Profit vs Cost of BESS’, where the x-axis is the capital cost of the battery system, and the y-axis is the required $/MWh profit required for all the discharged energy.