Renewable Energy Investment Feasibility Review

About This Toolkit

Assessment Details

Purpose and Scope

You can use this toolkit to carry out an early-stage or intermediate review of a renewable energy investment. It helps identify gaps in project information related to the site and resource, design, grid access, permits, revenues, costs, financing, environmental and social aspects, delivery, and operations.

It serves as a screening and review tool and is not an investment recommendation, certification of bankability, valuation, engineering opinion, legal or tax opinion, environmental and social impact assessment, or substitute for independent technical, financial, legal, insurance, and safeguards due diligence. The questions should be adapted to the specific technology, country, project size, ownership model, and requirements of the relevant lender or investor. A high checklist score does not mean the project is profitable, financeable, or suitable for investment.

Rule on critical gaps: Never let a high average score hide a significant unresolved issue. Record any high-impact uncertainties and decision blockers separately, assign an owner, and establish a resolution or escalation gate.

How to Use the Toolkit

Checklist 1: Draw up the project profile and carry out the initial screening to set out the proposal and identify any early obstacles.
Checklist 2: Ensure evidence and documents are recorded for what has been obtained, what is missing, and who is responsible for providing it.
Checklist 3 involves carrying out a feasibility review by scoring each of the 20 review areas and recording any evidence and gaps.
Apply Checklist 4: use prompts specific to the relevant renewable technology, including any storage or hybrid components.
Before suggesting the next review stage, carry out Checklist 5: the financial model and sensitivity review, and Checklist 6: the risk, action, and decision register.

Scoring

Scoring: For each item choose one score. Calculate the average by dividing total points by the number of items scored (excluding those marked N/A if justified). If fewer than 15 of the 20 items are scored, consider the average provisional.

Checklist 1 — Project Profile and Initial Screen

A. Project snapshot

Proposed technology / configuration

Proposed capacity and expected energy output

Site area / coordinates / land parcels

Development stage and key milestones

Intended customer, grid, or energy use

Proposed owner / developer / operator

Indicative total investment and funding plan

Key contracts / approvals already in place

B. Initial screen — mark Yes, No, or Unknown

The result on the initial screen is

Go to the structured feasibility reviewProceed after specified conditions are metPause and obtain missing evidenceStop and redesign

Conditions or stop issues

Checklist 2 — Evidence and Document Register

For each item, indicate whether it is Available, In progress, Missing, or N/A. Include the document title, date, preparer, and version where appropriate. Although the list serves as a guide, not all items will be relevant to every technology or stage.

Area	Evidence / document to locate	Status	Document reference / owner / due date
Project definition	Concept note, capacity, layout, project boundaries, schedule, ownership structure
Strategy and market	Energy-plan fit, market study, demand/customer profile, alternatives considered
Site and land	Site maps, title/lease/easement, cadastral survey, access, land-use constraints
Resource	Measurement campaign, resource atlas, independent assessment, data quality and period
Engineering	Concept/preliminary design, energy-yield model, design criteria, geotechnical/civil studies
Grid / delivery	Connection application, grid study, interconnection offer, transmission route, curtailment assessment
Permits and approvals	Permit matrix, licenses, planning/zoning, water rights, construction and operating approvals
Environmental and social	Screening, impact studies, biodiversity/land/water review, stakeholder engagement, resettlement/labor plans if applicable
Revenue and contracts	PPA/offtake/customer agreement, tariff or market assumptions, credit review, guarantees
Costs and schedule	CAPEX/OPEX estimate, EPC/O&M bids, contingencies, construction schedule, escalation assumptions
Finance and model	Financial model, assumptions book, funding term sheets, tax and currency analysis, sensitivities
Risk and insurance	Risk register, allocation matrix, insurance indications, climate and natural-hazard review
Delivery and operations	Procurement plan, EPC/O&M strategy, workforce and spare-parts plan, commissioning plan
End of life	Decommissioning, restoration, recycling, repowering, or asset-transfer plan

Key missing evidence that could change the decision

Checklist 3 — Feasibility Review Questionnaire

Maturity Rating

1: Not assessedNo reliable analysis or evidence is available; the topic has not been addressed.
2: PreliminaryInitial assumptions or desktop work exist, but important evidence, validation, or specialist review is missing.
3: DevelopedAnalysis is supported by project-specific evidence; remaining gaps and mitigations are documented.
4: Independently reviewedDecision-relevant evidence and analysis are complete for this stage, with appropriate independent review and tracked residual issues.
–: Not applicableNot applicable to this project or review stage. State why; do not use N/A simply because information is unavailable.

For every area, choose one maturity score from the guide above and attach or refer to relevant evidence. Then note the most significant gap or action required. Evaluate the quality and completeness of the review, not whether the investment is attractive.

1. Strategic case and alternatives

Is the project's purpose, expected energy service, market need, and fit with relevant plans clear? Have reasonable alternatives (including demand-side, storage, or other supply options where relevant) been considered?

1 · Not assessedNo reliable analysis or evidence is available; the topic has not been addressed.2 · PreliminaryInitial assumptions or desktop work exist, but important evidence, validation, or specialist review is missing.3 · DevelopedAnalysis is supported by project-specific evidence; remaining gaps and mitigations are documented.4 · Independently reviewedDecision-relevant evidence and analysis are complete for this stage, with appropriate independent review and tracked residual issues.N/A (not applicable)

Notes / example (optional)

2. Site control and land

Are site boundaries, ownership/lease/access rights, land use, easements, competing uses, and acquisition or tenure risks sufficiently understood?

1 · Not assessedNo reliable analysis or evidence is available; the topic has not been addressed.2 · PreliminaryInitial assumptions or desktop work exist, but important evidence, validation, or specialist review is missing.3 · DevelopedAnalysis is supported by project-specific evidence; remaining gaps and mitigations are documented.4 · Independently reviewedDecision-relevant evidence and analysis are complete for this stage, with appropriate independent review and tracked residual issues.N/A (not applicable)

Notes / example (optional)

3. Resource assessment

Is the resource assessment based on appropriate, sufficiently representative data and methods, with uncertainty and seasonal variation documented?

1 · Not assessedNo reliable analysis or evidence is available; the topic has not been addressed.2 · PreliminaryInitial assumptions or desktop work exist, but important evidence, validation, or specialist review is missing.3 · DevelopedAnalysis is supported by project-specific evidence; remaining gaps and mitigations are documented.4 · Independently reviewedDecision-relevant evidence and analysis are complete for this stage, with appropriate independent review and tracked residual issues.N/A (not applicable)

Notes / example (optional)

4. Site conditions and constructability

Have topography, geotechnical conditions, hydrology/flooding where relevant, access, logistics, and other site constraints been investigated to the level required for this stage?

1 · Not assessedNo reliable analysis or evidence is available; the topic has not been addressed.2 · PreliminaryInitial assumptions or desktop work exist, but important evidence, validation, or specialist review is missing.3 · DevelopedAnalysis is supported by project-specific evidence; remaining gaps and mitigations are documented.4 · Independently reviewedDecision-relevant evidence and analysis are complete for this stage, with appropriate independent review and tracked residual issues.N/A (not applicable)

Notes / example (optional)

5. Technology and design

Is the selected technology, configuration, capacity, and design basis appropriate to the site, resource, operating conditions, and project objectives?

1 · Not assessedNo reliable analysis or evidence is available; the topic has not been addressed.2 · PreliminaryInitial assumptions or desktop work exist, but important evidence, validation, or specialist review is missing.3 · DevelopedAnalysis is supported by project-specific evidence; remaining gaps and mitigations are documented.4 · Independently reviewedDecision-relevant evidence and analysis are complete for this stage, with appropriate independent review and tracked residual issues.N/A (not applicable)

Notes / example (optional)

6. Energy yield and performance

Are gross/net generation estimates, losses, availability, degradation, performance assumptions, and uncertainty transparently documented and appropriately reviewed?

1 · Not assessedNo reliable analysis or evidence is available; the topic has not been addressed.2 · PreliminaryInitial assumptions or desktop work exist, but important evidence, validation, or specialist review is missing.3 · DevelopedAnalysis is supported by project-specific evidence; remaining gaps and mitigations are documented.4 · Independently reviewedDecision-relevant evidence and analysis are complete for this stage, with appropriate independent review and tracked residual issues.N/A (not applicable)

Notes / example (optional)

7. Grid connection and delivery

Are connection capacity, network upgrades, system integration, losses, curtailment, dispatch, metering, and delivery responsibilities understood and evidenced? For off-grid projects, is the delivery system adequately assessed?

1 · Not assessedNo reliable analysis or evidence is available; the topic has not been addressed.2 · PreliminaryInitial assumptions or desktop work exist, but important evidence, validation, or specialist review is missing.3 · DevelopedAnalysis is supported by project-specific evidence; remaining gaps and mitigations are documented.4 · Independently reviewedDecision-relevant evidence and analysis are complete for this stage, with appropriate independent review and tracked residual issues.N/A (not applicable)

Notes / example (optional)

8. Permits and regulatory pathway

Is there a current approvals matrix covering land use, construction, generation, environmental, water, grid, market, and operating approvals as applicable—with responsible parties and timing?

1 · Not assessedNo reliable analysis or evidence is available; the topic has not been addressed.2 · PreliminaryInitial assumptions or desktop work exist, but important evidence, validation, or specialist review is missing.3 · DevelopedAnalysis is supported by project-specific evidence; remaining gaps and mitigations are documented.4 · Independently reviewedDecision-relevant evidence and analysis are complete for this stage, with appropriate independent review and tracked residual issues.N/A (not applicable)

Notes / example (optional)

9. Offtake and revenue

Is the route to revenue defined? Have price/tariff, volume, duration, indexation, dispatch or curtailment, payment security, buyer/customer credit, and contract risks been reviewed?

1 · Not assessedNo reliable analysis or evidence is available; the topic has not been addressed.2 · PreliminaryInitial assumptions or desktop work exist, but important evidence, validation, or specialist review is missing.3 · DevelopedAnalysis is supported by project-specific evidence; remaining gaps and mitigations are documented.4 · Independently reviewedDecision-relevant evidence and analysis are complete for this stage, with appropriate independent review and tracked residual issues.N/A (not applicable)

Notes / example (optional)

10. Capital costs and schedule

Are development, equipment, construction, grid, land, owner, contingency, taxes/duties, and financing-period costs estimated with a traceable basis and realistic timing?

1 · Not assessedNo reliable analysis or evidence is available; the topic has not been addressed.2 · PreliminaryInitial assumptions or desktop work exist, but important evidence, validation, or specialist review is missing.3 · DevelopedAnalysis is supported by project-specific evidence; remaining gaps and mitigations are documented.4 · Independently reviewedDecision-relevant evidence and analysis are complete for this stage, with appropriate independent review and tracked residual issues.N/A (not applicable)

Notes / example (optional)

11. Operating costs and asset life

Are staffing, maintenance, insurance, leases, resource/feedstock, network charges, replacement, degradation, and end-of-life costs addressed over the analysis period?

1 · Not assessedNo reliable analysis or evidence is available; the topic has not been addressed.2 · PreliminaryInitial assumptions or desktop work exist, but important evidence, validation, or specialist review is missing.3 · DevelopedAnalysis is supported by project-specific evidence; remaining gaps and mitigations are documented.4 · Independently reviewedDecision-relevant evidence and analysis are complete for this stage, with appropriate independent review and tracked residual issues.N/A (not applicable)

Notes / example (optional)

12. Financial model integrity

Is the model transparent, internally consistent, version-controlled, and supported by an assumptions book? Are taxes, inflation, foreign exchange, construction timing, and financing terms handled explicitly?

1 · Not assessedNo reliable analysis or evidence is available; the topic has not been addressed.2 · PreliminaryInitial assumptions or desktop work exist, but important evidence, validation, or specialist review is missing.3 · DevelopedAnalysis is supported by project-specific evidence; remaining gaps and mitigations are documented.4 · Independently reviewedDecision-relevant evidence and analysis are complete for this stage, with appropriate independent review and tracked residual issues.N/A (not applicable)

Notes / example (optional)

13. Returns and downside cases

Are the appropriate project and equity return measures, cash flows, debt-service measures where relevant, break-even conditions, and downside sensitivities reported without relying on a single base case?

1 · Not assessedNo reliable analysis or evidence is available; the topic has not been addressed.2 · PreliminaryInitial assumptions or desktop work exist, but important evidence, validation, or specialist review is missing.3 · DevelopedAnalysis is supported by project-specific evidence; remaining gaps and mitigations are documented.4 · Independently reviewedDecision-relevant evidence and analysis are complete for this stage, with appropriate independent review and tracked residual issues.N/A (not applicable)

Notes / example (optional)

14. Funding and capital structure

Are the funding sources, equity/debt assumptions, disbursement timing, conditions precedent, refinancing needs, currency exposure, and financing gaps understood?

1 · Not assessedNo reliable analysis or evidence is available; the topic has not been addressed.2 · PreliminaryInitial assumptions or desktop work exist, but important evidence, validation, or specialist review is missing.3 · DevelopedAnalysis is supported by project-specific evidence; remaining gaps and mitigations are documented.4 · Independently reviewedDecision-relevant evidence and analysis are complete for this stage, with appropriate independent review and tracked residual issues.N/A (not applicable)

Notes / example (optional)

16. Climate resilience and hazards

Have relevant climate and natural hazards, including impacts on resource, assets, construction, and operations over the project life, been screened and reflected in design or contingency planning?

1 · Not assessedNo reliable analysis or evidence is available; the topic has not been addressed.2 · PreliminaryInitial assumptions or desktop work exist, but important evidence, validation, or specialist review is missing.3 · DevelopedAnalysis is supported by project-specific evidence; remaining gaps and mitigations are documented.4 · Independently reviewedDecision-relevant evidence and analysis are complete for this stage, with appropriate independent review and tracked residual issues.N/A (not applicable)

Notes / example (optional)

17. Procurement and construction delivery

Are the contracting and procurement strategy, EPC scope, supply chain, equipment warranties, construction interfaces, schedule, cost-overrun controls, and commissioning approach credible?

1 · Not assessedNo reliable analysis or evidence is available; the topic has not been addressed.2 · PreliminaryInitial assumptions or desktop work exist, but important evidence, validation, or specialist review is missing.3 · DevelopedAnalysis is supported by project-specific evidence; remaining gaps and mitigations are documented.4 · Independently reviewedDecision-relevant evidence and analysis are complete for this stage, with appropriate independent review and tracked residual issues.N/A (not applicable)

Notes / example (optional)

18. Operations and maintenance

Is there a credible operator/O&M plan, skills and staffing approach, spare-parts strategy, performance monitoring, service-level expectations, and long-term maintenance budget?

1 · Not assessedNo reliable analysis or evidence is available; the topic has not been addressed.2 · PreliminaryInitial assumptions or desktop work exist, but important evidence, validation, or specialist review is missing.3 · DevelopedAnalysis is supported by project-specific evidence; remaining gaps and mitigations are documented.4 · Independently reviewedDecision-relevant evidence and analysis are complete for this stage, with appropriate independent review and tracked residual issues.N/A (not applicable)

Notes / example (optional)

19. Contracts, insurance, and risk allocation

Have material development, construction, operating, revenue, resource, grid, force-majeure, liability, and counterparty risks been allocated, mitigated, and reviewed by appropriate specialists?

1 · Not assessedNo reliable analysis or evidence is available; the topic has not been addressed.2 · PreliminaryInitial assumptions or desktop work exist, but important evidence, validation, or specialist review is missing.3 · DevelopedAnalysis is supported by project-specific evidence; remaining gaps and mitigations are documented.4 · Independently reviewedDecision-relevant evidence and analysis are complete for this stage, with appropriate independent review and tracked residual issues.N/A (not applicable)

Notes / example (optional)

20. Governance and end of life

Are decision rights, reporting, change control, compliance, asset handover, decommissioning/restoration/recycling or repowering responsibilities, and associated costs addressed?

1 · Not assessedNo reliable analysis or evidence is available; the topic has not been addressed.2 · PreliminaryInitial assumptions or desktop work exist, but important evidence, validation, or specialist review is missing.3 · DevelopedAnalysis is supported by project-specific evidence; remaining gaps and mitigations are documented.4 · Independently reviewedDecision-relevant evidence and analysis are complete for this stage, with appropriate independent review and tracked residual issues.N/A (not applicable)

Notes / example (optional)

Review Summary

Highest-priority unresolved issue(s)

Independent specialist reviews required

Checklist 4 — Technology-Specific Review Prompts

Fill in the appropriate module(s) and indicate those that are not applicable as N/A. Although these prompts point out areas where technology-specific studies may be needed, they do not serve as complete design specifications.

Solar photovoltaic / concentrated solar power

Not applicable

The resource data and the long-term variability are suitable for that site and technology.
An assessment is made of shading, soiling, temperature, snow, and dust where appropriate, as well as terrain, drainage, and layout constraints.
The assumptions concerning the module/collector, the inverter, the tracking system, the balance-of-system, degradation, and the warranty have been documented.
For the CSP system, the thermal resource, the configuration of the heat transfer and storage, the water requirements, and the operating profile are assessed.
Cleaning, the availability of water, vegetation and fire management, and the handling of the end-of-life module and equipment are all taken into account.

Wind

Not applicable

The measurement campaign, long-term adjustment, wind shear, turbulence, extreme wind, and resource uncertainty are all examined.
An assessment is made of turbine suitability, hub height, layout, wake losses, availability, noise and shadow, and setback requirements.
It is feasible to carry out the transport route, provide access for the crane, lay the foundations, connect to the grid, and manage the construction logistics.
Bird/bat, habitat, aviation/radar, community, and cumulative impacts are screened as applicable.

Hydropower / pumped storage

Not applicable

Hydrology, seasonality, climate variability, flow duration, sediment, and water-use competition are assessed.
Geology, geotechnical conditions, dam/civil works, safety, and construction risks receive appropriate specialist review.
Environmental flows, aquatic connectivity, fish passage, resettlement/livelihood impacts, and downstream effects are screened.
water balance, reservoir/cycle assumptions, grid services, and round-trip performance are assessed.

Geothermal

Not applicable

Resource conceptual model and exploration evidence are documented, including uncertainty and staged exploration decision gates.
Drilling, reservoir performance, reinjection, scaling/corrosion, induced seismicity, and fluid management are reviewed.
Resource confirmation risk, well replacement, steam/brine handling, and appropriate contingency costs are reflected in the model.

Bioenergy / biogas

Not applicable

Feedstock type, quantity, seasonality, competing uses, sustainable sourcing, price, and delivery logistics are evidenced.
Conversion technology, efficiency, emissions, residues/digestate, water, and air-quality controls are assessed.
Feedstock contracts and the plant's ability to operate under supply interruptions or price changes are reviewed.
Lifecycle land-use and greenhouse-gas considerations are checked where relevant to the investment mandate.

Battery storage / hybrid systems

Not applicable

Use case(s), dispatch strategy, charging source, duration, degradation, augmentation, and round-trip efficiency assumptions are explicit.
Revenue streams and stacking assumptions are permitted, non-duplicative, and tested against operational constraints.
Interconnection, controls, cybersecurity, fire protection, emergency response, warranties, and recycling/end-of-life are reviewed.

Other technology / mini-grid / behind-the-meter

Not applicable

Technology

Resource and load data are suitable for the proposed service.
System sizing, storage, distribution, metering, reliability, and backup arrangements are evaluated.
Customer affordability, payment/collection, demand growth, service quality, and operator capability are reviewed.
Technology-specific specialist studies required

Checklist 5 — Financial Model and Sensitivity Review

Confirm assumptions are traceable, dated, and consistent with project documents. Select or add scenarios relevant to the project, investor, and local market. Do not treat any single financial metric as a stand-alone investment decision.

Model area	Review prompt	Checked / notes
Generation	Are resource, yield, losses, degradation, availability, curtailment, and commissioning dates aligned across technical and financial models?
Revenue	Are offtake volume, price/tariff, indexation, merchant exposure, dispatch, certificates/incentives (if applicable), and payment timing supported?
CAPEX	Are development costs, equipment, EPC, grid, land, owner costs, taxes/duties, contingency, escalation, and drawdown schedule included?
OPEX	Are operations, maintenance, insurance, leases, network charges, feedstock, staffing, replacement, and decommissioning included where applicable?
Financing	Are debt/equity timing, rates, tenor, fees, repayment, covenants, currency, tax, and construction-period financing assumptions documented?
Outputs	Are cash flows and relevant return, affordability, economic, or debt-service indicators appropriate to the project and decision-maker?
Downside analysis	Are combined downside cases and break-even conditions examined, not only one-factor sensitivities?
Model governance	Is there an assumptions register, checks for formula integrity, version control, and independent model review appropriate to the decision stage?

Suggested scenarios to consider

Scenario / shock	Assumption to test	Result / threshold / action
Lower resource / energy yield or delayed commissioning
Higher CAPEX, construction delay, or supply-chain cost
Lower price / tariff, buyer default, or delayed payment
Higher OPEX, replacement cost, or reduced availability
Higher interest rate, FX movement, or refinancing constraint
Curtailment, grid delay, or reduced export capability
Climate, natural-hazard, or resource variability case
Combined downside / break-even case

Checklist 6 — Risk, Action, and Decision Register

Record each material risk, evidence gap, or condition. For high-consequence issues, specify escalation and decision implications even if likelihood is uncertain.

Risk / gap / assumption	Likelihood / impact	Evidence or uncertainty	Mitigation / next action	Owner	Due date / decision gate

Decision and next steps

Conditions before the next decision gateSpecialist reviews to commission (technical / grid / legal / financial / environmental-social / climate / insurance / other)Decision ownerTarget dateReviewer notes

Reference basis and adaptation note

This toolkit is a customizable screening aid. Its structure draws on established project-cycle and feasibility-review topics reflected in the World Bank Group Renewable Energy Toolkit; the World Bank Group's utility-scale solar project developer guidance; NREL's project-development framework covering site, resource, offtake, permits, technology, team, and capital; and World Bank/ESMAP guidance on grid-connection studies for variable renewable energy. Reviewers should consult current local requirements, project-specific technical standards, lender safeguards, and qualified specialists before making investment or financing decisions.

Readiness Self-Assessment Summary Results

–out of 4

Score the questions above to see your readiness level.

0 of 20 questions scored. N/A answers are left out of the average.

Average	Interpretation of review maturity—not an investment rating
1.00–1.74	Concept stage / substantial evidence gaps
1.75–2.49	Early review / material validation still required
2.50–3.24	Developed review / targeted gaps remain
3.25–4.00	Strongly documented for the current review stage; final decision still requires appropriate approvals and specialist due diligence

About The Readiness Checklist

This checklist provides a self-reported snapshot of your current readiness. It is not a verified diagnosis, engineering opinion, investment recommendation, or substitute for specialist advice. It gives a preliminary indication of project-data readiness and missing information, and does not establish technical feasibility, returns, or financing eligibility. A comprehensive assessment requires validating the underlying data, conducting analysis, confirming priorities, and developing a tailored readiness roadmap.

Interested in an in-depth Renewable Energy Investment Assessment?

Epsilon Innovation Group can use your results to scope a detailed assessment, validating your answers against documents, interviews and data, with findings, priorities and a practical roadmap.

Contact us to discuss the scope, timeline, and cost.

See the full assessment Contact us

Download Your Checklist

Save the completed checklist, with your results and all your answers, as a PDF.

Renewable Energy Investment Feasibility Review

About This Toolkit

Assessment Details

Purpose and Scope

How to Use the Toolkit

Scoring

Checklist 1 — Project Profile and Initial Screen

A. Project snapshot

B. Initial screen — mark Yes, No, or Unknown

Checklist 2 — Evidence and Document Register

Checklist 3 — Feasibility Review Questionnaire

Maturity Rating

1. Strategic case and alternatives

2. Site control and land

3. Resource assessment

4. Site conditions and constructability

5. Technology and design

6. Energy yield and performance

7. Grid connection and delivery

8. Permits and regulatory pathway

9. Offtake and revenue

10. Capital costs and schedule

11. Operating costs and asset life

12. Financial model integrity

13. Returns and downside cases

14. Funding and capital structure

15. Environmental and social matters

16. Climate resilience and hazards

17. Procurement and construction delivery

18. Operations and maintenance

19. Contracts, insurance, and risk allocation

20. Governance and end of life

Review Summary

Checklist 4 — Technology-Specific Review Prompts

Solar photovoltaic / concentrated solar power

Wind

Hydropower / pumped storage

Geothermal

Bioenergy / biogas

Battery storage / hybrid systems

Other technology / mini-grid / behind-the-meter

Checklist 5 — Financial Model and Sensitivity Review

Suggested scenarios to consider

Checklist 6 — Risk, Action, and Decision Register

Decision and next steps

Reference basis and adaptation note

Readiness Self-Assessment Summary Results

About The Readiness Checklist

Interested in an in-depth Renewable Energy Investment Assessment?

Discuss Your Results With Us

Download Your Checklist