The model for energy transition investment over the past decade or so has gone something like this: raise capital, seek out assets with the potential to create value, manage those projects to deliver returns and ultimately realise value on exit.
Throughout that investment cycle, an investor’s internal team would remain relatively lean. Skilled people are expensive, and the expectation was that, once projects were operational and specialist providers appointed, the ongoing demands on the investor’s own team would remain manageable.
That is, of course, a simplified take, but in distilling the approach to its essentials helps expose an assumption that has become increasingly difficult to sustain: that outsourcing individual functions also takes care of the wider responsibilities of ownership.
For wind, solar and battery investments, those responsibilities can be considerable. Equipment failures, volatile power prices, grid constraints and curtailment can all affect performance, including at projects with comprehensive operations and maintenance programmes. Addressing them often requires someone to bring together technical, commercial and financial perspectives, and establish what needs to happen next.
In practice, much of that work can find its way back to the investor’s internal team. Expensive, skilled individuals become absorbed in firefighting, coordinating accounts and reporting, or signing off operational decisions. The team may remain lean, but the demands on its time are anything but.
What has made this imbalance more pressing is the shift away from cheap capital. Higher financing costs and more demanding return requirements have put asset valuations under pressure, making it harder to rely on favourable market movements to support investment performance. Investors therefore have greater reason to concentrate on what they can improve within the portfolios they already own.
Yet the people who should be pursuing additional value through refinancing, upgrades or contract renegotiations can find themselves absorbed in protecting the value already there. Both activities matter, but when day-to-day oversight consumes the team’s attention, the opportunities to improve returns can be left waiting.
The question, then, is how investment firms can organise ownership so that those day-to-day demands are met, while giving their own teams the time and information to concentrate on the work where their judgement adds the greatest value.
The growing demands of ownership
As portfolios have grown and diversified across technologies and geographies, so too has the ecosystem required to manage them. An institutional investor might have multiple asset managers, operators, technical specialists, commercial advisers and other counterparties working across its investments.
Each may perform its particular role well. The difficulty is keeping their activities coordinated around the investor’s objectives.
At the same time, the issues affecting asset performance increasingly cut across traditional areas of responsibility. Technical availability can have commercial consequences, while contractual arrangements can influence operational decisions. Grid constraints, curtailment and changing power markets can all ultimately feed through to financial returns.
Understanding performance therefore requires more than receiving reports from each service provider. Someone needs to join those strands together and consider their implications for the owner.
For lean investor teams, the challenge is as much about the use of expertise as the volume of work.
Institutional investors may lack the scale, desire or mandate to build large internal operating teams. Where an asset management team exists, highly experienced, expensive people can become absorbed in day-to-day coordination. Where it does not, the investment professionals originating and executing transactions often inherit those responsibilities, with asset management losing priority when a new investment demands attention.
That pattern also affects team development and retention. Continual firefighting leaves less room to develop the judgement and strategic experience needed to become future leaders.
Bridging the gap between investment and operations
The conventional answer has often been to outsource individual functions. That can provide access to excellent specialist expertise, but outsourcing does not in itself remove the need for oversight.
Senior people can find themselves managing the managers: chasing reports, resolving accounts and audit queries, coordinating stakeholders and checking that actions are followed through. The frustration is that a full diary and considerable effort do not necessarily translate into progress on the opportunities that could improve returns.
The consequences extend beyond lost opportunities. Where teams lack capacity to intervene early, manageable problems can develop into warranty disputes, loan defaults or damaged relationships, requiring considerably more time and expense to address.
Over an asset’s life, these oversights can compound into sustained and material loss of value.
Effective ownership needs both the capability to protect existing value and the focus to create more of it.
An ownership partner can work as an extension of the investor’s internal team, coordinating stakeholders, managing deliverables and translating operational data into information that supports decisions. It provides specialist expertise and capacity to manage more capital and projects without scaling fixed overheads in proportion.
Looking for value within the existing portfolio
The distinction between protecting value and adding value helps determine where that support belongs.
Day-to-day oversight and value protection can be entrusted to an ownership partner. Additional value through acquisition, refinancing, upgrades, contract renegotiation and disposal strategy depends on the investor’s objectives and judgement. Those priorities need to remain led by its own team, supported by the expertise and information required to act effectively.
Supporting work might include interrogating asset performance, aligning commercial and operational decisions, identifying portfolio opportunities and ensuring issues are resolved before they become material.
Better ownership structures should give investor teams clearer information, stronger oversight and confidence that agreed actions are being implemented.
At Neptune Infrastructure Associates, this is how we think about energy transition asset management and the role of an ownership partner.
We work alongside investors’ teams, bringing together operational, commercial and financial perspectives and coordinating the day-to-day requirements of ownership around their priorities. Depending on the requirement, we can also consolidate work that would otherwise sit with several specialist advisers, giving the investor a single point of contact.
That capability combines capacity with practical expertise from people who have managed projects from the inside. Experienced asset specialists can be difficult to recruit, while permanent appointments may not suit an investment’s holding period. Access to an established operating capability gives investors another way to meet those needs.
From capital deployment to active ownership
As the sector matures, creating value after investment depends on how effectively investors deploy the expertise within their own teams.
With margins and returns under pressure, investors need confidence that their portfolios are actively overseen and that senior people can progress the decisions shaping investment outcomes.
An established ownership capability can also provide continuity when an investment is sold, potentially widening the buyer pool to investors without their own energy transition team. How ownership is organised matters throughout the holding period: it should help the capital already deployed work harder, while enabling investor teams to concentrate on the priorities where they add the greatest value.
- Ends -
