Article: BESS Revenue Model Optimization

Maximising the value of Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) depends on more than just cutting-edge technology; it also requires clear financial insight and commercial flexibility. When deciding on an optimiser, beyond revenue forecasting, BESS project owners must consider which revenue models best align with their unique goals.

Continue reading this article to discover which revenue model fits your needs and challenges, or watch the replay of our webinar "Maximise battery revenue: building bankable projects with long-term ROI" by clicking on the image below.

Jump to:

To estimate gross revenues for each BESS asset, Sympower combines historical performance data with internal and external market price projections, before simulating different scenarios. This approach enables us to simulate how your asset could perform under various market conditions, across different timeframes and services.

We incorporate key technical characteristics, such as battery duration, degradation rates, and round-trip efficiency, to ensure that our forecasts reflect the operational reality of each system. By modelling market dynamics at a granular level, we help asset owners make informed decisions, whether they’re evaluating a new project or optimising an existing one.

Because every BESS project is unique, with different financial objectives and risk appetites, battery project owners and developers must carefully select the revenue model that best meets their specific needs and risk preferences, each with its pros and cons.

Each revenue model varies in how it distributes risks between the project owner and the optimiser.

One of the most common options on the market, where the project owner and the optimiser share revenues from the BESS operations, according to a pre-agreed percentage split in favour of the project owner. This structure creates a shared incentive, since the optimiser's performance will directly affect its own revenue. This model therefore encourages continuous performance optimisation and market responsiveness.

Best suited for: asset owners seeking high market exposure and flexibility.

Benefits Challenges

Straightforward set-up

Easier contract termination if the optimiser underperforms or the project owner wants to change optimisers.

Not ideal for risk-averse investors.

No downside protection: the asset owner is exposed to market volatility (e.g., market saturation).

No performance obligation placed on the optimiser.

In this increasingly more popular model, the optimiser's share of revenue depends on their performance. Rather than a fixed percentage, the rate is dynamic and ideally benchmarked live. It provides more incentives for the optimiser to perform well, as it rewards high performance and penalises underperformance.

Best suited for: asset owners seeking high market exposure and partnering with mature optimisers.

Benefits Challenges

Greater upside potential for the asset owner, as the optimiser is incentivised to outperform.

Straightforward set-up.

Flexibility to switch optimisers.

No downside protection: the asset owner is exposed to market volatility (e.g., market saturation).

No performance obligation placed on the optimiser.

Unlike the two previous models, here the optimiser guarantees a minimum annual revenue to the asset owner (the "floor"). Revenue beyond that threshold is shared between the project owner and the optimiser. If the project performs below the minimum guarantee, the optimiser must pay the difference. In return for taking on that increased risk, the optimiser usually receives a greater share of the upside.

Revenue floors provide project bankability and can be particularly valuable when securing financing or when exposure to merchant market volatility is a concern.

Best suited for: experienced BESS developers or owners with a good track record seeking bankability and more stability, and willing to forgo some revenue for reduced risk.

Benefits Challenges

Share upside for the asset owner beyond the floor.

Most market risk is borne by the optimiser.

Floors can be set too low to cover project costs.

Require a sophisticated legal setup

Typically used only for larger projects and more experienced BESS developers.

What an offer looks like (illustrative only):

Floor value (€/MW/year) 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 100 000 100 000 100 000 100 000 100 000 Revenue % above floor +50% +50% +50% +50% +50%

Tolling: Fixed, Pre-Agreed Revenues Tolling is another type of revenue guarantee model, where the optimiser guarantees a fixed payment to the project owner. Revenues generated above that level are allocated to the optimiser in their entirety - they are not shared with the project owner. If the project performs below the minimum guarantee, the optimiser pays the difference. In this set-up, the optimiser takes on the full responsibility and risk of the market optimisation.

This revenue model provides the asset owner with predictable income while offloading operational complexity. It also enhances bankability, enabling developers to secure financing for their projects.

Best suited for risk-averse investors seeking secure and predictable revenue with minimal market exposure.

Benefits Challenges

Predictable revenue for the project owner.

Provides high leverage to the project owner when they seek financing for their project.

No upside potential for the project owner.

Can be difficult to find a sufficiently high toll offer to achieve a significant return on investment (ROI) on the project.

In this less common model, the project owner retains full operational control of its assets and pays the optimiser a fixed fee, typically in return for the use of a trading platform software. This model suits project owners who want to self-manage trading and operations, such as automating asset scheduling and activations, ensuring market and TSO compliance, and streamlining settlement and reporting.

In this setting, the project owner gains access to optimisation software that can handle bidding and interface with all the other required platforms, as well as provide assistance with trading strategies.

Best suited for: investors and project owners who want to take a hands-on approach to trading the batteries themselves, and who may have their own in-house trading team.

Benefits Challenges

Lower cost than other models.

Project owner bears all the risk exposure.

Requires large-scale projects to justify in-house optimisation capabilities.

Whether you're looking for hands-on control, guaranteed returns, or a fully outsourced solution, Sympower offers a path forward. Our goal is to ensure that every BESS asset delivers optimal value today and into the future.