Revenue Due Diligence
A robust revenue plausibility check has two parts, each building on the other:
1. Revenue Audit & Plausibility Check
The internal plausibility check: from the generation profile through the market price assumptions to the trading/optimization result. Scope: revenue side only; CAPEX/OPEX and financial modelling are handled separately.
Process Overview
Project Setup
The foundation of every revenue plausibility check: confirming the project is represented correctly and plausibly in the model.
| Criterion | What is checked |
|---|---|
| Generation volume plausibility | Modelled annual yield checked against an independent weather/yield source (e.g. MERRA-2) |
| Degradation | Generation degradation over the project lifetime represented with explicit start value, end value and curve |
| Consistency of price curves and generation data | Same weather year, plausible price escalation p.a. |
| Technical parameters & modelling horizon | Plant configuration, grid connection/feed-in, storage operating mode, modelling period |
| Scope delineation | This check covers the revenue side only, not CAPEX/OPEX or the financing structure |
| Ramp-rate modelling | Conservative assumptions and the effect of model granularity on the estimate reviewed |
Example
A ~26 MWp PV plant models ~25,400 MWh/a. Cross-checked against independent weather data (MERRA-2, ~27,000 MWh/a), the profile shows high monthly correlation (ρ ≈ 0.97) and low deviation (RMSE ≈ 365 MWh) — the generation assumption holds up.
Market Data
Confirming the market price data used is fit for purpose and grounded in observable market reality.
| Criterion | What is checked |
|---|---|
| Scenario selection | Price scenario (conservative/central/optimistic) checked against negative-price hours, capture prices and day-ahead levels |
| Alignment with regulatory reference values | Pure generation revenue checked against the applicable EEG reference value |
| Subsidy / market premium mechanism | Strike price, market inclusion date and negative-hour rules correctly represented |
| Benchmarking against market participants | Model output compared against realised revenues reported by direct marketers |
| Documentation & source reference | Underlying market scenario publication cited and dated |
Example
Pure generation revenue for an EEG-relevant asset lands at 4.0–5.5 ct/kWh — squarely inside the applicable reference-value (Anzulegender Wert) corridor, supporting the overall plausibility of the revenue level.
Trading Model & Optimization Validation
Confirming the dispatch optimization achieves revenue levels consistent with those realised by real market participants.
| Criterion | What is checked |
|---|---|
| Benchmarking against audited reference data | Compared against attested portfolio reports from established traders (e.g. enspired's KPMG-attested track record) |
| Metric alignment | Min/max ranges, cycle counts and duration/spread compared between reference data and model parameters |
| Documentation & source reference | Underlying model description cited, including version |
Example
Optimization output is benchmarked against a KPMG-attested portfolio report from an established trader (enspired) — results align closely, with the model trending conservative rather than aggressive.
DD Checklist Download
The full revenue plausibility checklist as an Excel file.
Download checklist (.xlsx)2. Revenue Certificate
For selected projects, the internal check is additionally packaged as a complete, externally shareable audit document — a revenue certificate that can be handed to clients, investors and lenders. All figures and charts below are illustrative and not tied to a real project.
Certificate Structure
Formal Audit Framework & Overview
Every revenue audit follows a fixed, traceable structure: uniquely identified, versioned, and with an overview that shows what was presented and checked per topic block.
| Criterion | What is checked |
|---|---|
| Formal audit framework | Unique audit number and versioning, plus client, contact, author and date |
| Sign-off per review area | Initials and date for each topic block reviewed |
| Review overview | Per topic block (revenue, energy volumes, market data/generation profile, model/benchmarks): what is presented and what is checked |
| Overall summary | Short plausibility summary up front |
Example
Illustrative, not tied to a real project: an audit number such as "PRJ-X-MMYYYY-var01" with creation date, client and contact details, and a "reviewed" mark per review area.
Executive Summary with Quantified Results
The core results are condensed onto one page: quantified additional revenue, a breakdown by revenue source, and a read on how conservative the assumptions are.
| Criterion | What is checked |
|---|---|
| Headline figure | On the economic result, e.g. additional revenue over the project lifetime |
| Revenue source breakdown | E.g. day-ahead, intraday, virtual cycling |
| Unmodelled upside | Revenue named but not modelled, e.g. balancing/ancillary services |
| Conservativeness | Short assessment of how conservative the assumptions are |
Example
Illustrative, not a real project figure: "The project generates roughly X mn € of additional revenue over 20 years. Day-ahead, intraday and virtual cycling revenue are included; ancillary service revenue was not modelled and represents a possible upside."
Detailed Evidence
The summary is backed by complete, auditable tables and a comparison against current market data.
| Criterion | What is checked |
|---|---|
| Annual revenue table | Across the full lifetime, broken down by revenue source, including normalised metrics (€/MWh, €/MW) |
| Reality check | Against more recent, actually observed market data, with a short trend assessment |
| Energy/technical balance | Generation, curtailment, charging, losses, sales per market |
| Technical metrics | Including cycle count and capacity degradation over the lifetime |
Example
Illustrative layout: one row per revenue source, one column per operating year, plus a summary row "profit in €/MWh" (generic values, no real project reference).
Model Transparency & External Benchmarking
A dedicated appendix makes the model boundaries explicit, and the results are cross-checked against several independent, real reference sources.
| Criterion | What is checked |
|---|---|
| Transparency chapter | Markets/revenue sources the model can represent, configurable parameters, objective function and solver logic |
| Model boundaries | Explicitly listed: what is deliberately not represented, and why |
| Multiple external benchmarking | Several independent backtest sources for different asset configurations compared on a monthly basis |
| Per-comparison assessment | Whether model output sits within, above or below the reference corridor |
Example
Illustrative comparison with monthly values: once against a marketer's backtest (combined generation/storage setup), once against a trading firm's backtest (standalone storage setup).
References & Legal Framing
The document closes by positioning itself as a trust instrument and making its legal boundaries transparent.
| Criterion | What is checked |
|---|---|
| Reference page | Other users of the platform, plus contact information |
| General disclaimer | Provided "as-is" with no warranty as to accuracy, reliability or completeness |
| Forward-looking statement | Based on current expectations; actual results may differ |
Example
A reference row with placeholder logos of other clients, followed by the two standard closing texts.
Note: All analyses and figures are based on simplified model assumptions and historical market data. They are for illustrative purposes and do not constitute investment advice. Project-specific analyses account for individual site parameters, current market prices, and financing structures.
Model your own projects
Apply the methodology directly to your projects — with personalized scenarios, site parameters, and auditable results.