Resources / Research & analysis
Research for
investment decisions.
Practical frameworks for portfolios, funds, financing facilities and energy infrastructure. Explore perspectives from both SCC practices, alongside selected publications and analytical tools.
SCC perspectives / Investment & Impact
Clear evidence.
Informed decisions.
Three practical checklists for institutional teams reviewing portfolios, assessing funds and co-investments, or developing financing facilities.
01Portfolio diagnosisIs the portfolio ready for a strategy review?Which exposures, obligations and information gaps could change the discussion?
A useful strategy review starts with a reliable view of the existing portfolio and the institution’s objectives. This checklist helps teams establish the evidence needed before comparing allocation or implementation options.
Establish the starting position
Define the entities and holdings covered, reporting currency and valuation date. Reconcile positions and cash flows to administrator or manager records. Show which values are current, stale, disputed or missing; a blank field is not evidence of zero exposure.
Separate asset value from funding obligations
Show net asset value, undrawn commitments, guarantees and any additional recall obligations separately. Look through funds where data permit, while avoiding counting both a fund holding and its underlying assets in the same total.
Test the cash requirement
Compare unrestricted cash and credible inflows with expected calls, operating costs and debt service. Examine delayed distributions and accelerated contractual calls together. Record the period of lowest cash headroom and the assumptions driving it.
Make the policy questions explicit
Document liquidity needs, loss tolerance, concentration limits, impact objectives and decision responsibilities. Identify common manager, asset, sector, country and currency exposures. Missing policy limits are questions to resolve, rather than evidence that the portfolio meets them.
Before the strategy discussion
- Can the team reproduce the headline holdings, cash and commitment totals?
- Are data coverage and unknown exposures visible, with a stated denominator?
- Are performance and impact measures comparable in definition, period and attribution?
- Does each material issue have evidence, an owner and a clear question for the decision-making body?
Keep portfolio diagnosis and strategy choice distinct. A reconciled evidence base makes the trade-offs visible; the institution’s objectives, constraints and authorised decision process determine the next step.
Further reading / External publications
ILPA · Private Equity Principles & Best Practices02Diligence & monitoringQuestions that connect diligence to monitoringWhat supports the investment case, and what would make it change?
Fund and co-investment reviews need a traceable chain from the proposed investment to the evidence, terms and ongoing reporting. Use these questions to scope analysis and expose unresolved issues before a decision.
For a fund
Test whether the strategy, team and operating resources fit the proposed portfolio. Distinguish current-team experience from inherited performance. Examine realised proceeds, residual valuations, fee and carry terms, borrowing, key-person provisions and conflicts on consistent reporting bases.
For a co-investment
Establish why the allocation is available, the sponsor’s retained exposure and the investor’s actual legal interest. Trace the business plan into cash flow, debt, additional funding needs and distribution rights. Review governance, dilution, related-party arrangements and exit constraints.
For the evidence review
Separate verified facts, manager assertions, model assumptions and analyst judgements. Give missing or contradictory information an explicit status. Assess the scope, age and reliance rights of third-party reports, and identify where specialist legal, tax or technical work is needed.
For the monitoring handover
Agree reporting rights, metric definitions, baselines, timing and owners before relying on a dashboard. Link valuation changes, liquidity pressure, governance events and environmental or social incidents to defined review and escalation actions.
Questions to carry through the process
- Can material cash flows, valuations and investor economics be reconciled to their sources?
- What happens under a combination of weaker revenue, higher costs, delayed exits or additional capital calls?
- Which unresolved facts could reverse the conclusion, and what evidence would resolve them?
- Are conflicts, conditions and review responsibilities documented separately from the final decision?
- Will the institution receive the data needed to detect a change in the original investment case?
A completed questionnaire is a starting point for analysis. Keep evidence confidence, investment findings and decision authority separate, and give each material monitoring exception an accountable owner.
Further reading / External publications
ILPA · Due Diligence Questionnaire 2.0 (2021)03Facility designDesign the capital, support and governance togetherWhy is a facility needed, and how will its funding produce the intended result?
A financing facility needs a coherent purpose, credible operating economics and clear responsibilities. Where investments sit alongside technical assistance (TA) or grants, review the support window with the same care as the investment structure.
Define the problem and additionality
Describe the financing or capability barrier, intended beneficiaries and expected outcomes. Test what would happen without the intervention and why existing commercial or public channels are insufficient. Set out how any concessional support addresses the barrier and how that rationale will be reviewed.
Trace the capital and operating costs
Map committed and prospective funding separately, including currencies, instruments, timing and conditions. Reconcile sources and uses, investment deployment, losses, operating costs and support budgets. Test the facility at a slower launch and lower funding level.
Govern the TA and grant window
Define eligibility, selection criteria, eligible costs and award limits. Separate appraisal, approval, payment and verification responsibilities; record conflicts and recusals. Establish proportionate procurement rules, disbursement conditions, reporting and remedies for unmet obligations.
Make results measurable
Specify the intended change, baseline, indicators and data responsibilities. Distinguish activity delivered from outcomes achieved, and explain attribution limits. Budget for monitoring, evaluation and complaints handling, including adverse environmental or social effects.
Before moving from concept to implementation
- Is the intervention rationale supported by evidence and a credible comparison with alternatives?
- Are each partner’s responsibilities, decision rights and funding status explicit?
- Can investment returns, grant spending and operating costs be followed separately through the model?
- Do TA or grant payments depend on clear, verifiable conditions with named approvers?
- Are additionality, results and the need for continued support subject to periodic review?
A strong concept distinguishes the facility’s investment proposition from its development rationale, then explains how the two work together. Prospective funding and proposed partnerships should remain visible as conditions, not commitments.
Further reading / External publications
OECD · DAC Blended Finance Guidance (2025)SCC perspectives / Energy Finance & Resilience
Start with the asset.
Follow the cash flow.
Practical questions for investors, lenders, developers and public institutions. Select a theme to explore the investment questions, evidence to request and routes to deeper analysis.
01Battery storageBESS project types and their investment casesWhat service does the battery provide, and who pays for it?
Battery energy storage systems (BESS) need different investment cases depending on their location, operating role and commercial arrangement. Start with the use case before sizing the financing.
Standalone, grid-connected storage
Test contracted capacity or availability payments, market trading and system services separately. Confirm market eligibility, dispatch rights, charging costs and whether revenues can be earned together. Merchant revenue needs downside cases rather than a single price forecast.
Renewables paired with storage
Assess solar or wind and the battery as one operating system. Establish who controls charging and dispatch, how the power purchase agreement values delivery, and how connection limits, losses and curtailment affect sales.
Commercial & industrial storage
For batteries behind a customer’s meter, test savings against the actual tariff and load profile. Review the customer contract, credit quality and responsibility for performance. Export revenue depends on local rules and connection permissions.
Remote systems & microgrids
Compare storage with the cost and reliability of the existing supply, including diesel where relevant. Check demand, collection risk, maintenance access and replacement logistics. Backup power requires suitable controls and an engineered ability to operate during a grid outage.
Across every project type
- Identify the payer, service, currency and payment security.
- Model usable energy, cycling, efficiency, degradation and augmentation costs together.
- Test connection delays, operating restrictions and downtime against cash available for debt service.
- Check that warranties, dispatch obligations and the financial model describe the same operating case.
A resilience benefit is an investment benefit only when its value and the party receiving it are clear. Avoid counting the same battery capacity twice across services.
Further reading / External publications
IEA · Financing Battery Energy Storage Systems in Indonesia (2026) NREL · Behind-the-Meter Battery Storage: Frequently Asked Questions (2021)02Electricity gridsFrom network need to a financeable grid projectWhich investment earns a return, through which payment mechanism?
Transmission expansion, distribution upgrades and connection reinforcement solve different network problems. The financing analysis should connect each investment to an owner, a delivery obligation and a route to recovering its costs.
Transmission & major reinforcement
Define the assets and dependencies needed to move power between regions. Examine land and permitting, construction interfaces, completion risk and how expenditure enters the relevant tariff or payment arrangement.
Distribution & connections
Distinguish customer-funded connections from wider network reinforcement. Review demand assumptions, service standards, losses, collection performance and the ability to recover operating and investment costs.
Questions for an investment review
- Who owns the asset, approves investment and pays for its availability or use?
- How are capital costs, operating costs and inflation recovered, and when can payments change?
- Which generation, substations or neighbouring networks must be ready for the project to operate?
- How do a construction delay, an outage or a slower demand build-up affect receipts and funding needs?
System benefits support the case for investment. A financeable structure also needs an identifiable and enforceable payment mechanism.
Further reading / External publications
IEA · Electricity Grids and Secure Energy Transitions (2023)03InterconnectorsTrace the power flow. Then trace the payment.Who pays for the wire when trade volumes or directions change?
Cross-border power projects connect several assets, jurisdictions and contracts. Follow a unit of electricity from generator to buyer, then follow the corresponding invoice. Gaps between these two chains are often where financing risks emerge.
Export generation with a dedicated line
Align the power purchase agreement with plant and transmission completion, dispatch rights and curtailment treatment. Check which party bears the loss when generation is available but the line is not.
Trade through existing networks
Match supply, transit and import arrangements. Review wheeling charges, losses, priority of access and interruption rights across each country. An alternative generator may still depend on the same transit route.
A shared interconnector
Identify how availability payments, regulated recovery, capacity rights or trading income support the asset. Test how costs and revenues change as users and power flows change; trading spreads are not assured cash flow.
Make the contracts fit together
- Map each payer, currency, payment date and credit-support arrangement.
- Align contract duration, delivery points, capacity, loss allocation and termination provisions.
- Separate domestic reinforcement costs from the cross-border asset’s costs.
- Test an interruption, a partial restoration and delayed settlement as distinct cash-flow effects.
Power sales and transmission revenues can belong to different entities. Model the cash flow of the entity being financed, not just the economics of the overall corridor.
Further reading / External publications
IEA · Financing the ASEAN Power Grid (2026)04Cyber resilienceTranslate cyber disruption into an investment questionHow would interrupted operations change revenue, liquidity and recovery costs?
A cyber incident can interrupt dispatch, monitoring, metering or settlement. An investment review should connect the operational assessment to the project’s contracts and financial model.
Define the operating scenario
Work with technical specialists to identify affected functions, dependencies and credible restoration stages. Distinguish a loss of visibility from reduced output or a complete outage; they need different assumptions.
Follow the financial consequences
Model lost or deferred receipts, contractual deductions, restoration expenditure and additional working capital. Review the response of reserves, insurance and payment protections against their actual terms.
Evidence to request
- Critical system and supplier dependencies, including shared control or communications infrastructure.
- Incident response and recovery plans, with evidence from relevant exercises or testing.
- Contractual treatment of outages, data loss, payment delays and restoration responsibilities.
- A cash-flow bridge from disruption through partial recovery to normal operations.
SCC’s focus is the financing consequence and allocation of risk. Technical cyber assessments inform the scenarios; an illustrative stress case is not an estimate of attack probability.
Further reading / External publications
IEA · Enhancing Cyber Resilience in Electricity Systems (2021)05Physical climate riskConnect climate exposure to asset performanceWhich hazards affect this asset, its dependencies and its recovery path?
A climate scenario becomes useful to an investment team when it connects location-specific exposure to operating performance, repair costs and cash flow over the asset’s life.
Assess the asset and its dependencies
Consider heat, flood, wildfire and storm exposure where relevant to the location. Include substations, access routes, cooling and upstream supply. Different hazards may affect output, availability or the time needed to restore service.
Compare adaptation choices
Translate specialist engineering estimates into investment cases for protection, redundancy or operating changes. Compare upfront and ongoing costs with the change in disruption and recovery outcomes across defined scenarios.
Build a decision-ready scenario
- Document the location, time horizon, hazard data and engineering assumptions.
- Separate reduced performance, physical damage and access or supply-chain delays.
- Trace revenue changes, repair spending, insurance terms and debt-service implications.
- Test whether several assets depend on the same vulnerable network or supplier.
Avoid applying a generic climate-risk score directly to revenue. Show the causal steps, the evidence behind them and the uncertainties that could change the decision.
Further reading / External publications
IEA · Climate Resilience (2021)Intelligence / Selected published work
Research with
investment relevance.
How projects generate cash flow. Where risks sit. Which financing structures can support investment.
Financing Battery Energy Storage Systems in Indonesia
Business models, project bankability and financing for battery storage.
International Energy AgencyFinancing the ASEAN Power Grid
Financing approaches and business models for cross-border electricity infrastructure.
International Energy AgencyClean Energy Investing: Global Comparison of Investment Returns
Research on investment performance and the characteristics of clean-energy assets.
IEA & Imperial College Business SchoolSelected research contributions by Inchan Hwang in individual professional roles. Publications are hosted by their original publishers.
Blended finance, in practice.
An illustrative capital-stack model for exploring risk allocation and financing structures.
Data & research / In development
Structured evidence.
Better comparisons.
We are exploring a research database for comparing storage, grid and interconnector projects: project type, market, development stage, revenue model and financing structure, with dated source references.
Coverage and access will be announced as the product develops. For current needs, commission a focused market landscape or a project-specific evidence review.
Discuss a research questionA conversation is a good place to start
Research for your
next decision.
Tell us the market, project or resilience question you need to understand. We will agree the evidence, analysis and outputs.
Discuss research[email protected]