What infrastructure investors look for in energy storage management teams

Infrastructure investors entering battery storage spend months on revenue forecasts, technology choices, connection terms and contract structures. The management team that will turn those assumptions into cash flow is usually assessed more informally: a few meetings, some references and a judgement about chemistry. Given how much of a storage business's value depends on execution, that imbalance deserves attention.

Why leadership risk is higher in storage than it looks

Battery storage combines the long timelines of infrastructure development with the speed of a trading business. A portfolio may take years to consent and connect, then must be built quickly, then operated in markets where revenues move month to month. Modo Energy's analysis shows GB battery revenues rising from around £51k per MW per year in 2024 to £72k per MW per year in 2025, while monthly volatility persisted. Teams that thrive in one part of that cycle are not always equipped for the next.

The market itself is also shifting. The Clean Power 2030 Action Plan, published by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero in December 2024, sets out a need for 23 to 27 GW of battery capacity in Great Britain by 2030. Modo Energy reported the operational GB fleet at 7.6 GW in its Q2 2026 buildout report. Closing that gap will test the delivery capability of every serious developer and owner, and capable leaders will be in demand.

Five things investors look for

Evidence of the next phase, not just the last one. A team that has consented 2 GW of projects has proved its development capability. It has not necessarily proved it can manage construction contracts, raise project debt or run an operational fleet. Investors should map the team's actual track record against the phases the business plan requires over the investment horizon.

Clear ownership of commercial strategy. Storage revenues depend on trading strategy, optimiser selection and contracting choices such as floors or tolls. Investors should know exactly who owns those decisions and how deeply that person understands them.

Grid credibility. Following NESO's connections reform, connection positions carry more weight than ever. A management team should be able to explain its Gate 2 position, milestone obligations and the risks attached to each connection date without deferring to an adviser.

Depth below the top. Many growing storage businesses rely on two or three individuals. That is normal at an early stage, but key person risk should be visible in the investment case alongside a plan to reduce it.

Candour. Delays, cost changes and grid surprises are inevitable. Teams that report problems early and precisely are easier to back than those whose reporting is uniformly positive.

Turning judgement into evidence

Investors rarely lack opinions about a management team. What they often lack is a structured comparison. Three approaches help:

• Role by role assessment against the plan. Define what each senior role must deliver over the hold period, then assess the incumbent against that standard rather than against a generic job description.
• External benchmarking. Understand how comparable storage businesses are led and where relevant experience sits in the market. This is the purpose of leadership talent mapping: it shows what good looks like and how realistic a replacement or addition would be.
• Succession planning before it is needed. If a key individual left, how long would it take to replace them, and with whom? Answering that question before completion is far cheaper than answering it after.

The opportunity for management teams

None of this should feel adversarial. Strong management teams benefit from rigorous assessment because it gives investors confidence and focuses discussion on the right gaps. A credible, agreed plan to strengthen leadership can become part of the investment thesis rather than a concern buried in diligence.

For investors, the question is simple: if leadership is one of the largest drivers of value in a storage business, why is it so often the least structured part of the analysis?

Last reviewed 8 October 2026. Figures are correct to the cited sources at that date.