Redesigning cPPA governance: how a European utility built operating model before systems
This utility's entry into complex Power Purchase Agreements (cPPA) exposed a critical gap: a structure around traditional functions (sales, trading, origination), and not cPPA ownership. CommodityFirst diagnosed the operating model and designed the governance structure to fix it.
Key results
- End-to-end diagnostic
- cPPA governance model design
- Contract modularization framework
- Contract management & CRM roadmap
- Cross-functional ownership alignment
Who is this case suited for?
- Utilities, Energy Companies, Trading Houses and larger IPPs entering the cPPA market
- Medium to large organizations
- Heads of Energy Markets, Chief Commercial Officers, Heads of Transformation, Trading Leads, Technology Leaders, Chief Risk Officers
A market opportunity with operational complexity
For years, utilities relied on standardized long-term offtake agreements or bilateral PPA contracts with relatively straightforward commercial terms. The cPPA market demanded longer tenors (10–25 years), bespoke terms, and settlement mechanics tied directly to renewable asset performance, curtailment, and market conditions.
This opened commercial opportunities but also introduced operational risk that the existing organization wasn't structured to manage.
The client recognized the strategic value of cPPA capabilities but faced a critical question:
Who's accountable and how should cPPA contracts be operated?
Key challenges
The organization faced challenges across four dimensions:
- No end-to-end cPPA process; unclear roles and decision rights
- No dedicated customer care function for cPPA customers
- Lengthy, tedious approval process with no early risk or operations involvement
- Cross-functional complexity treated as a coordination problem, not an operating model problem
- Heavy reliance on Excel and manual workflows for contract tracking
- Inconsistent CRM usage across regions
- No contract management system to support visibility of contract terms, amendments, or rights and obligations
- No unified deal pipeline visible to operations and risk teams
- New Product Approval Process (NPAP) not designed for cPPA business model
- No standardization of contracts or modularization of product elements
- Complex, unclear approval workflow creating delays and frustration
- Accountability for contract changes and amendments unclear
- Too few resources with holistic, end-to-end understanding of the cPPA lifecycle
- Limited cPPA knowledge distribution across the organization
- No dedicated capability for cPPA contract and relationship management
- Knowledge concentration in original deal owners; contract context can get lost when people depart or move roles
Experienced staff were compensating for the broken operating model daily, masking the underlying fragility. This created a hidden risk: as cPPA volume scaled, that manual heroism wouldn't scale with it.
Diagnosis before design
Rather than jumping to system selection, we conducted a structured diagnostic across the entire cPPA lifecycle.
Designing the Operating Model
Based on the diagnostic, we designed a cPPA-specific operating model before recommending any systems.
The design proposal
The core concept: Create a dedicated cPPA Account Manager (CAM) role—a cross-functional, senior-level position responsible for owning the cPPA contract from pre-deal through operations and amendment.
| Design Element | What It Addresses |
|---|---|
| Distinguish Standard vs. cPPA Contract Mgmt | Different skill requirements; unified approach creates bottlenecks at every stage |
| Modularize Contracts & Products | Every cPPA is unique; standardize repeatable elements to reduce operational risk and complexity |
| Adjust the Approval Workflow | Current process lacks early risk and operations involvement; post-signature surprises common |
| Add Dedicated Customer Interface | No single point of contact; customer requests bounce between functions; slow response |
| Establish Unified cPPA Visibility | Deal pipeline fragmented across regions; operations and risk lack planning visibility |
| Formalize Contract Change Management | No clear ownership of amendments; unclear process creates delays and relationship risk |
Why systems come second
Notably, the design did not lead with system selection. Instead, it clarified what the systems needed to support.
Once operating model is defined, the system requirements become clear:
- Contract Management System: Must support contract templates aligned to the product-element matrix; enable tracking of amendments and obligations; maintain version control and audit trails;
- CRM System: Must log all customer interaction; provide unified customer view across regions; enable workflow for request handling and escalation;
- Deal Pipeline Tool: Must visualize pre-deal, in-negotiation, and live deals; track approval status; flag upcoming renewal or renegotiation windows
Without the operating model design, system selection becomes a technical exercise divorced from how the organization actually needs to work. That's how utilities end up rebuilding the same blind spots on newer infrastructure.
Positioning for Operating Model maturity
The diagnostic and design work positioned the client to move forward with confidence. The organization could now move beyond guesswork and hope it had concrete answers:
- Clarity on operating model: Defined roles, decision rights, and accountability for cPPA contracts
- A phased roadmap: Immediate staffing (CAMs), near-term process transformation (approval workflow), and medium-term systems implementation (contract management + CRM)
- Cross-functional alignment: Stakeholders understood why the changes were needed and how they would reduce operational risk
- Foundation for scale: A model that would support 2x or 5x growth in cPPA volume without proportional increases in coordination overhead
The organization was now ready to move from assessment to implementation – starting with operating model change, then systems that fit how they actually work.
Why this matters for other Utilities
The cPPA market is becoming mainstream. As more utilities enter it, they face the same structural question: How should the organization own a 20-year bespoke contract for a specific renewable asset?
Many are trying to apply existing PPA or trading processes. Those processes weren't designed for cPPA complexity and create operational friction.
Utilities achieve success if they:
- Diagnose the operating model gap before jumping to systems
- Create dedicated accountability rather than adding cPPA work to existing trading or origination functions
- Design cross-functional approval workflows that catch risk and operational feasibility before signature
- Standardize what can be standardized without losing the flexibility required by the deal
- Build visibility of the deal pipeline and contract portfolio so risk and operations can plan ahead
These interventions cost less and are faster to implement than system replacement, and they determine whether technology investments actually solve the problem.
Key Learnings
- Operating model comes before systems. Without clarity on roles, accountability, and workflows, new systems recreate the same fragmentation.
- Cross-functional ownership requires dedicated resources. Asking existing trading, origination, or operations teams to "own" cPPAs as a side-of-desk function doesn't work at scale.
- Standardize selectively. Not every contract term should be modularized, but contract elements that repeat (payment conditions, curtailment clauses, force majeure language) should be pre-approved options.
- Approval workflow design is risk management. Rushing to signature without operations and risk sign-off creates post-signature surprises that cost time and credibility.
- Visibility enables planning. A unified deal pipeline and contract portfolio view allows operations and risk to anticipate needs, staff appropriately, and avoid firefighting.
CommodityFirst
Contact us
We can help you assess current strengths and weaknesses of your business, processes and IT landscape.