Project Risk Assessment of Renewable Energy Projects in Electricity Market Structures: A Systematic Literature Review.
Saved in:
| Title: | Project Risk Assessment of Renewable Energy Projects in Electricity Market Structures: A Systematic Literature Review. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Tampubolon, Daniel Karmel Fernando1,2 (AUTHOR), Khayam, Umar1,2 (AUTHOR), Isnandar, Suroso1,3 (AUTHOR), Banjar-Nahor, Kevin Marojahan1 (AUTHOR), Inkaresa, Ardian2 (AUTHOR), Laksono, Ferdi Adi2,3 (AUTHOR), Sinurat, Rechman2 (AUTHOR) rechman.sinurat@pln.co.id, Pamungkas, Aditya Sage2 (AUTHOR), Sipahutar, Jhon Andreas2 (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Energies (19961073). Jul2026, Vol. 19 Issue 13, p3179. 42p. |
| Subject Terms: | *Risk assessment, *Electricity markets, *Project management, *Renewable energy sources, *Monte Carlo method, *Economic liberalization |
| Abstract: | Risk assessment frameworks for renewable energy projects are predominantly designed for liberalised electricity markets, leaving state-dominated and single-buyer systems analytically underserved. This systematic literature review (SLR) synthesises 116 peer-reviewed studies (2015–2026) following a PRISMA-compliant, Kitchenham-guided protocol to identify and critically evaluate project-level risks and assessment methodologies across diverse electricity market structures. Three contributions are made: (i) a market-structure-differentiated risk taxonomy showing how risk profiles differ structurally across liberalised, hybrid, and single-buyer markets; (ii) the Integrated Risk Assessment Framework for Renewable Energy Projects (IRAF-REPs), a five-layer architecture connecting market structure context, risk category taxonomy, assessment methods, project lifecycle phases, and risk-register standards (ISO 31000/COSO); and (iii) a structured three-horizon future research agenda. Market/price risk (~68%) and policy/regulatory risk (~58%) dominate the reviewed literature, while counterparty/PPA risk—dominant in single-buyer contexts—is largely absent from quantitative frameworks. Monte Carlo simulation and real options analysis lead quantitative practice in liberalised-market studies; the hybrid Monte Carlo-System Dynamics (MC-SD) combination appears in fewer than 4% of studies despite its conceptual suitability for single-buyer contexts. Five research gaps are identified. Findings advance SDG 7, SDG 13, and SDG 9, with direct governance relevance for Indonesia/PLN and comparable Global South economies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Database: | Energy & Power Source |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Risk assessment frameworks for renewable energy projects are predominantly designed for liberalised electricity markets, leaving state-dominated and single-buyer systems analytically underserved. This systematic literature review (SLR) synthesises 116 peer-reviewed studies (2015–2026) following a PRISMA-compliant, Kitchenham-guided protocol to identify and critically evaluate project-level risks and assessment methodologies across diverse electricity market structures. Three contributions are made: (i) a market-structure-differentiated risk taxonomy showing how risk profiles differ structurally across liberalised, hybrid, and single-buyer markets; (ii) the Integrated Risk Assessment Framework for Renewable Energy Projects (IRAF-REPs), a five-layer architecture connecting market structure context, risk category taxonomy, assessment methods, project lifecycle phases, and risk-register standards (ISO 31000/COSO); and (iii) a structured three-horizon future research agenda. Market/price risk (~68%) and policy/regulatory risk (~58%) dominate the reviewed literature, while counterparty/PPA risk—dominant in single-buyer contexts—is largely absent from quantitative frameworks. Monte Carlo simulation and real options analysis lead quantitative practice in liberalised-market studies; the hybrid Monte Carlo-System Dynamics (MC-SD) combination appears in fewer than 4% of studies despite its conceptual suitability for single-buyer contexts. Five research gaps are identified. Findings advance SDG 7, SDG 13, and SDG 9, with direct governance relevance for Indonesia/PLN and comparable Global South economies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 19961073 |
| DOI: | 10.3390/en19133179 |
