Targets don’t build power projects, deliverability does.

Utilities and developers are under pressure to deliver clean energy projects at speed, scale and certainty. But big ambition without rigorous risk management can backfire - blowing out budgets, timelines and stakeholder trust.

Calls for power, like the one recently launched by BC Hydro in Canada, are a powerful tool for procuring clean electricity. Yet with diverse proposals and developers involved, understanding which projects are viable and which pose long-term challenges, is no easy task.

Ben Saffron, Executive Advisor and the Investment, Policy and Economics Leader for GHD in the Americas, played a leading role in the independent evaluation of BC Hydro’s Call for Power, which awarded 10 long-term electricity purchase agreements projected to deliver 5,000 GWh per year of clean energy. This is enough to power half a million new homes and boost BC Hydro’s current supply by 8 percent, which is higher than its original target. Also, the construction of these projects is anticipated to attract billions in private capital investments and create more than 1,000 jobs in British Columbia. 

In this conversation, Ben shares what’s involved in risk reviewing in renewable energy projects and how utilities and independent power producers (IPPs) can work together to build confidence, reduce delays and create mutually beneficial outcomes.

Ben Saffron:

We’re in a moment where the energy transition continues to move from ambition to execution. If we’re going to hit net zero targets, we need to get real projects into operation and fast. That means utilities and investors need confidence that what’s proposed is technically viable, financially sound and aligned with broader energy system requirements.

At the same time, importantly, we need projects that are reliably going to be integrated into the grid, and support overall energy security, particularly with continuously rising demand.

De-risking is about making sure the fundamentals are solid. It’s not about making projects perfect. It’s about identifying where the real risks are, and whether those risks are being managed appropriately. This becomes especially important in competitive procurement processes like calls for power, where you’re evaluating multiple projects with different developers, technologies and delivery models.

Ben Saffron:

We look at technical and resource-related risks, because that’s where a lot of problems tend to emerge later in delivery. For example, we assess the quality of the energy resource - wind speeds, solar irradiance, seasonal variation - and how that aligns with the proposed technology and location.

We also consider project deliverability, project design maturity and the developer’s understanding, permitting progress, access to infrastructure and whether the schedule is realistic. Is the site accessible? Are there terrain or weather issues? Is the interconnection viable within the proposed timeframe? These are all questions that feed into whether a project can be delivered as promised.

Ben Saffron:

BC Hydro’s 2024 Call for Power was their first in over 15 years, and it was a big one. It initially aimed at securing around 3,000 GWh/year of clean electricity. What made it notable was the level of complexity and ambition. They had a diverse mix of projects to evaluate - wind, solar and hybrid - and they also had a strong focus on First Nations equity participation, so the overall program had many strong and appealing facets.

As Technical Advisor, we led a structured, independent evaluation of all the proposals, looking specifically at technical feasibility and deliverability. That meant digging deep into project design, data quality, interconnection plans and organisational experience. We weren’t just checking boxes. We were building a full risk profile for each project and helping the utility understand where the real pressure points might be.

In the end, 10 projects were awarded contracts, adding nearly 5,000 GWh/year to the grid. That’s a great outcome and it exceeded BC Hydro’s original target. And it worked because the evaluation process was rigorous, transparent and collaborative.

Ben Saffron:

Yes, definitely. One of the biggest risks is weak or insufficient resource data. If a wind project hasn’t conducted a robust monitoring campaign - or if the data only covers a short time period - that introduces uncertainty in yield forecasts. Similarly, if the interconnection plan is vague or the transmission capacity in that region is already constrained, that raises questions about deliverability.

We also see risk where project schedules are overly optimistic, or where proponents are clearly early in the permitting process without a clear pathway. And then there’s organisational readiness. Does the developer have experience delivering similar projects and understand the risks associated with delivery in this particular jurisdiction, with these stakeholders, under these timelines? If not, that needs to be factored into the risk profile.

Ben Saffron:

First, acquire high-quality resource data. Whether it's wind, solar or storage, comprehensive resource evaluations underpin everything - from system design to financial modelling. Second, make sure your project schedule is credible and supported by risk understanding. If you say you can be online in a specific month in two years, that needs to align with grid availability, permitting processes and construction lead times.

Third, be transparent about risks – as in, demonstrate you understand key risks. You don’t need to eliminate every uncertainty, but you do need to show that you understand them and have plans in place to manage them. And finally, demonstrate a deep understanding of the local context - whether that’s regulatory conditions, permitting requirements, Indigenous participation requirements or infrastructure constraints.

Ben Saffron:

Start with clarity. Define your evaluation criteria clearly and communicate them early. That gives proponents the best chance to put forward strong, relevant proposals. Next, make sure you have the right evaluation team. That means people who understand local technical realities but also understand global best practice.

Also, be realistic about timelines. Procurement is not just about picking “winners”, so to speak. It’s about building confidence in your own delivery plan and giving yourself enough flexibility to achieve your overall business objectives. And finally, recognise the power of collaboration. The best outcomes come when utilities, developers and advisors work together with aligned goals. That’s how we can move swiftly from ambition to action.

Understanding clean energy project risks isn’t just a checkbox. It’s the foundation for confident, fast, and effective delivery. By embedding independent, multidisciplinary evaluations into procurement processes, utilities and IPPs can reduce friction, improve execution, and build renewable energy systems that deliver - on time, on budget and with public trust.