What can go wrong
Twenty cataloged risks with their probability and impact, eight red flags that automatically halt an investment, and a 55-item checklist that saves in your browser as you work through it.
Probability x impact
Each risk falls into a cell. The only one with critical impact is also the gate that can halt all of Phase 1 before committing a single peso
How this matrix was built
The probability scales (low / low-medium / medium / medium-high / high) and impact scales (medium / high / critical) are qualitative and come directly from the research. They were not assigned a numeric score nor multiplied: a "risk 12/25" would imply a precision the source does not have. Empty cells are empty because no documented risk falls there — not because they were filtered out.
About the seven categories: the source groups risks into six blocks and puts "environmental and political" into one. Here that block is split into two — environmental and climate on one hand, political and security on the other — because an extreme weather event and an expropriation are not mitigated with the same tools nor assessed by the same person. This is a presentation decision, not new data: the three risks in that block are the same, with the same probability and impact the source declares.
| Probability ↓ / Impact → | Medium | High | Critical |
|---|---|---|---|
| High | F1 · COP depreciation | I2 · Interconnection approval timelines | — |
| Medium-High | C2 · Low community organizational capacity | — | — |
| Medium | R2 · Surplus tariffs I3 · Interconnection cost overrun C1 · CPC subscription C3 · Internal conflicts F3 · Cost of capital | R1 · Change of administration R3 · Regulatory defect (1.5% rate) C4 · O&M abandonment O1 · EPC misses deadlines P1 · Security in PDET zones | I1 · No interconnection capacity |
| Low-Medium | — | F2 · PPA offtaker delinquency | — |
| Low | R4 · Change in Ley 1715/2099 incentives O3 · Trust company underperforms A1 · Extreme weather events | O2 · O&M operator abandons P2 · Expropriation or land-use change | — |
I1 is the only critical cell — and that is why Phase 1 starts by spending USD $50K
"No interconnection capacity in the target municipalities": medium probability, critical impact. The mitigation is not contractual, it is sequential: a 30-day grid assessment is a go/no-go gate and no capital is committed until it is confirmed. Interconnection went from being an unaddressed topic in the v1.0 architecture to being the first gate in v2.0 — it was one of the advisory board's criticisms.
If the pre-investment reveals that no interconnection capacity exists in the target municipalities, or that the CREG 101 072 regulatory pathway is fundamentally broken, the initiative pauses. That is written in the investment materials themselves.
All 20 risks, with their mitigation
1 · Regulatory risks (4)
| Risk | Prob. | Impact | Mitigation |
|---|---|---|---|
| R1 · A change of administration modifies or defunds CREG 101 072 | Medium | High | Phase 1, with a 36-month horizon, deliberately spans the administrative transition. PPAs are structured independently of regulatory incentives. CREG 101 072 is an accelerator, not a prerequisite. |
| R2 · CREG modifies surplus compensation tariffs | Medium | Medium | Long-term PPAs with fixed tariffs. Primary revenues come from self-consumption (savings), not from surplus sales. |
| R3 · The 1.5% establishment rate indicates a fundamental regulatory defect | Medium | High | The pre-investment diagnoses the cause in months 0-6. If it is a fundamental regulatory defect, the initiative pauses until resolution. If it is a capacity gap, CTH provides the technical assistance — which is the thesis. |
| R4 · Change in Ley 1715/2099 incentives | Low | Medium | Projects are structured to be viable at reduced — not zero — incentive levels. ZOMAC serves as an independent tax shield in eligible municipalities. |
2 · Grid interconnection risks (3)
| Risk | Prob. | Impact | Mitigation |
|---|---|---|---|
| I1 · No interconnection capacity in target municipalities | Medium | Critical | The 30-day assessment is a go/no-go gate. No capital is committed until confirmation. Geographic diversification across municipalities. |
| I2 · Prolonged interconnection approval timelines | High | High | Early engagement with the distribution system operator. Proactive relationship with grid operators. |
| I3 · Interconnection costs higher than estimated | Medium | Medium | Cost estimates obtained from the grid operator during pre-investment. 15% contingency in CAPEX. |
The only category with a critical-impact risk, and the only one whose mitigation can halt the entire initiative.
3 · Community risks (4)
| Risk | Prob. | Impact | Mitigation |
|---|---|---|---|
| C1 · Insufficient CPC subscription | Medium | Medium | The CPC at COP $1M (~USD $235) is accessible; a 6-month installment plan exists. CPCs are only 5% of total capital, reducing pressure. Engagement methodology already proven in Ruta Verde. |
| C2 · Low community organizational capacity | Medium-High | Medium | Lightweight associations, not cooperatives: minimum viable governance. EN-Comunidad/IOM program. Basic SENA training. |
| C3 · Internal community conflicts | Medium | Medium | Independent member on the trust committee. Complaints mechanism. Rotation of the community representative. |
| C4 · Post-inauguration O&M abandonment | Medium | High | Revolving fund from day 1. Professional O&M contract for the first 3 years. SENA certification for local technicians. |
C4 is not theoretical. Three projects on the map materialize it: Soling del Sinu (batteries exploded in Mucura, Santa Cruz del Islote system collapsed), Isla Grande (pending technical failures), and Bahia Malaga (inaugurated with reported problems). See the cases on the map →
4 · Operator risks (3)
| Risk | Prob. | Impact | Mitigation |
|---|---|---|---|
| O1 · EPC contractor misses deadlines | Medium | High | Contractors with demonstrated experience. Performance guarantees. 10% CAPEX contingency. |
| O2 · O&M operator abandons | Low | High | Contractual backup clauses. Multiple available operators. Community training as backup. |
| O3 · Selected trust company underperforms | Low | Medium | Selection among Colombia's top three trust companies. Trustee replacement clauses in the contract. |
"EPC without demonstrable experience in projects of similar size in Colombia" is also one of the eight red flags that automatically halt the process. See operator profiles →
5 · Financial risks (3)
| Risk | Prob. | Impact | Mitigation |
|---|---|---|---|
| F1 · COP depreciation against USD/EUR | High | Medium | Dollar-denominated PPAs where possible. Natural hedge via COP-denominated debt. DFI investment in USD with conversion at disbursement. |
| F2 · PPA offtaker delinquency | Low-Medium | High | Credit-rated offtakers (utilities, corporates). PPA guarantee deposits. CREG-regulated tariff as backstop. |
| F3 · Cost of capital higher than projected | Medium | Medium | Diversified capital stack. First-loss tranche absorbs risk. Tax incentives improve net return. |
F1 is the only risk with high probability and only medium impact — and it is also the one that most directly affects the institutional investor IRR (8-12%), which is measured in USD on an asset that bills in COP.
6 · Environmental and climate risks (1)
| Risk | Prob. | Impact | Mitigation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A1 · Extreme weather events | Low | Medium | Asset insurance. Resilient design. Remote monitoring systems. |
A single row, and it stays that way. The research documents exactly one environmental-climate risk with probability and impact. Adding plausible risks — panel degradation, end-of-life waste disposal, water stress — to "balance" the matrix visually would mean inventing them. Panel waste management does appear, but as item E2 in the due diligence checklist, not as a rated risk. The field precedent exists: the reconstruction of Providencia and Santa Catalina after Hurricane Iota included 530 PV systems.
7 · Political and security risks (2)
| Risk | Prob. | Impact | Mitigation |
|---|---|---|---|
| P1 · Security in PDET / conflict zones | Medium | High | Coordination with the ARN (reintegration agency). Prior consultation. Community presence itself acts as a protective factor. |
| P2 · Expropriation or land-use change | Low | High | Formal property registration or loan-for-use agreement. Legal establishment of the energy community. DFI participation serves as political protection. |
"Security risk classified as unacceptable by the context assessment" is one of the eight red flags that halt the process. P1 is also the primary risk of the Rural PDET archetype — the archetype with the most identified opportunities in the pipeline (170 municipalities).
The eight red flags that halt the process
These due diligence findings result in automatic rejection of the project:
- No interconnection capacity confirmed by the grid operator (grid-connected projects).
- Unresolved land or roof ownership/tenure conflict.
- Significant community opposition — less than 70% support in assembly.
- Insufficient solar irradiation: <3.5 kWh/m2/day in the site assessment.
- Projected DSCR below 1.2x in the base scenario.
- Security risk classified as unacceptable by the context assessment.
- Failure to conduct prior consultation in ethnic communities.
- EPC without demonstrable experience in projects of similar size in Colombia.
Only one risk is critical — and that is why USD $50K is spent first
Of the 20 cataloged risks, only "no interconnection capacity in the target municipalities" has critical impact. Its mitigation is not contractual but sequential: a 30-day grid assessment serves as a go/no-go gate, and no capital is committed until it is confirmed.
Four standards, four different depths
Not all are documented with the same detail, and the tabs say so rather than disguise it
IFC Performance Standards
The Venture Builder applies the IFC Performance Standards as the environmental and social safeguard framework for all investments.
| Standard | Application |
|---|---|
| PS1 · Assessment and management of risks and impacts | Environmental and social management system per project |
| PS2 · Labor and working conditions | Labor standards in construction and O&M |
| PS4 · Community health and safety | On-site safety protocols, waste management |
| PS5 · Land acquisition and involuntary resettlement | Voluntary loan-for-use agreements; no forced acquisition |
| PS7 · Indigenous Peoples | Prior consultation for Wayuu, Embera, and other communities |
PS3, PS6, and PS8 are missing — and are not filled in
The IFC Performance Standards number eight. This project's research documents the application of five. PS3 (resource efficiency and pollution prevention), PS6 (biodiversity and sustainable management of living natural resources), and PS8 (cultural heritage) have no declared application here. Drafting a plausible application for them would be exactly the type of fill-in ESG that a discerning financier catches on the first read. An investor requiring full coverage of all eight should treat this as a gap to close during structuring, not as a standard already covered.
Where PS7 bites: the country's highest-irradiation territories coincide with Wayuu territory — 1,409 families in Miichi Ka'i (Uribia) and 160 communities in Manaure. Failure to conduct prior consultation in ethnic communities is one of the eight red flags.
Global Reporting Initiative
The trust's impact reports will follow the GRI standard, seeking transparency and comparability.
That sentence is everything the source says about GRI
A single line of commitment, with no selection of specific GRI standards, no content index, no defined materiality, no declared frequency beyond the trust's general reporting calendar. This tab looks thin because the documented commitment is thin, and a table of GRI standards invented here would not make it more real.
What is defined is the autonomous trust's reporting calendar: quarterly (financial and operational), semi-annual (ESG impact, community metrics, risk update), and annual (externally audited financial statements, governance, asset valuation). And in post-investment ESG monitoring: quarterly measurement of avoided emissions with the updated emission factor, annual IRIS+ and SDG metrics report, and biennial carbon credit verification if the project is registered.
For an investor requiring formal GRI reporting, the selection of standards is a pending structuring task. It is declared as pending here.
Sustainable Development Goals
Six SDGs with documented direct contribution. The wheel below links to each one.
| SDG | Direct contribution |
|---|---|
| SDG 7 · Affordable and clean energy | Access to clean energy; 30-60% cost reduction |
| SDG 8 · Decent work and economic growth | 150+ jobs in 3 years (construction + O&M) |
| SDG 10 · Reduced inequalities | 30% community ownership as structural guarantee |
| SDG 11 · Sustainable cities and communities | Distributed generation; energy resilience |
| SDG 13 · Climate action | 3,000-5,000 tCO2e avoided in Phase 1 |
| SDG 5 · Gender equality | Target of 40% women on energy committees (MAF/GGGI model) |
The order follows the source, which lists SDG 5 last despite having the lowest number. It is preserved so as not to suggest a prioritization the source does not declare.
IRIS+ Metrics (GIIN)
| IRIS+ Metric | Indicator | Phase 1 Target |
|---|---|---|
| PI2822 | Energy access | 2,100+ households with improved access |
| PI1568 | Renewable energy generated | 10,000-20,000 MWh/year |
| PI4060 | GHG emissions avoided | 3,000-5,000 tCO2e/year |
| OI8869 | Communities benefited | 3-5 communities |
| PI5108 | Jobs generated | 150+ |
Gender targets
| Target | Indicator | Objective |
|---|---|---|
| Energy committee participation | % of women on association boards | Minimum 40% |
| CPC access | % of women CPC holders | Parity |
| Construction and O&M employment | % of women in the project workforce | 35% (GGGI benchmark: 50%) |
| Technical training | % of women in SENA solar certifications | 40% |
Aligned with the MAF/GGGI model. The employment target (35%) is below the GGGI benchmark (50%), and the source declares this. The CPC access target says "Parity," not a percentage: it is reproduced literally rather than translated to a 50% the source does not write.
Six goals with direct contribution
Click a segment to jump to its card
The six segments are equal on purpose
This wheel is a navigation index, not a data chart. The segments are the same size because the source does not weight the SDGs against each other: it does not say SDG 7 "weighs" more than SDG 5. Drawing them at different sizes would assert an invented prioritization. The colors are the brand palette, not the official United Nations colors.
SDG 7 · Affordable and clean energy
Access to clean energy and 30-60% cost reduction. Field evidence: 53% in Bocas del Palo, ~35% in Arroyohondo, 48% to 100% in Cali — with families paying COP $0 — and up to 20% in Laureles.
SDG 8 · Decent work and economic growth
150+ jobs in 3 years across construction and O&M — 20 in year 1, 75 in year 2, 150 in year 3. With SENA certification for local technicians: on Isla Grande, over 20 islanders already certified.
SDG 10 · Reduced inequalities
30% community ownership as structural guarantee, codified in the trust agreement and in each SAS's bylaws. Cannot be diluted without unanimous approval from all parties. This is the difference between a contractual right and a discretionary social fund.
SDG 11 · Sustainable cities and communities
Distributed generation and energy resilience. The extreme case: Cumaribo (Vichada), Colombia's first "Energy Municipality," with urban and rural zones on 24/7 renewables.
SDG 13 · Climate action
3,000-5,000 tCO2e avoided in Phase 1. Colombian grid emission factor ~0.407 tCO2e/MWh (2024); estimated credit generation of 0.35-0.40 tCO2e per MWh after conservative discounts.
SDG 5 · Gender equality
Target of minimum 40% women on energy committees, parity in CPC ownership, 35% in the workforce (GGGI benchmark: 50%), and 40% in SENA solar certifications. In Coqui and Guachalito, women-led entrepreneurship — tourist lodging, viche spirit production — is the documented productive use of the energy.
Documented bill reduction by project (%)
Field evidence for SDG 7: the bill reduction each project reports. This is not a controlled, comparable measurement — the Medellin P2P pilot reports a ceiling of 7% for low-income prosumers, while Bocas del Palo reports 53% already operational; they use different methodologies, scales, and years. Cali is excluded because the source gives a range (48% to 100%) rather than a single figure, and choosing one would fabricate precision. Each bar is the figure its source declares, without homogenizing.
The three-year ramp
Five Venture Builder KPIs, measured against their own year 3 target
KPI progress toward year 3 target (%)
Each axis is a KPI normalized to its own year 3 target = 100%. Only this way can five indicators in different units — communities, people, dollars, jobs — share a scale. The year 3 outer ring is 100% by construction: what is informative is the shape of years 1 and 2, i.e., how late each thing starts. Absolute figures are in the adjacent table.
Why this radar does not compare "impact dimensions"
The original design for this page called for a radar comparing the model's impact across five dimensions — environmental, social, governance, financial, and community. That chart cannot be built without inventing the five scores. No source in this project scores the model on those dimensions; there is no scale, no method, no evaluator. It would have been five numbers chosen so the figure looks good.
What does exist is the Venture Builder's KPI table with values for years 1, 2, and 3. That is what is charted. KPIs that the source provides as ranges were excluded from the radar — projects under construction (2-3 / 3-5), MW under construction or operational (5-10 / 10-20) — as were those with values for only one year: normalizing a range would require choosing a point within it.
| KPI | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Grid assessments completed | 5-10 municipalities | — | — |
| Communities established (CREG 101 072) | 3 | 5 | 5 (cumulative) |
| CPC holders (members) | 500 | 1,500 | 2,100 |
| Community capital raised | USD $100K | USD $350K | USD $500K |
| Projects under construction | 0 | 2-3 | 3-5 |
| MW under construction or operational | 0 | 5-10 MW | 10-20 MW |
| DFI capital committed | USD $3M | USD $8M | USD $10M |
| Carbon credits issued | 0 | 0 | 3,000-5,000 tCO2e |
| Jobs created (construction + O&M) | 20 | 75 | 150 |
| Energy cost reduction per household | — | 20-30% | 30-50% |
Source: Investment_Pillar_Expanded.md §21. Dashes are cells without a value in the source, not zeros: "grid assessments" only applies to year 1, and "energy cost reduction per household" has no year 1 target because no projects are operational yet.
Due diligence is 55 items and eight red flags
Eight due diligence findings produce automatic rejection — among them, a site irradiation below 3.5 kWh/m2/day, a projected DSCR below 1.2x, or less than 70% community support in assembly. The complete 55-item checklist is walkable below and its progress saves in this browser.
The 55 items
Must be completed for each project before trust committee approval. Your progress saves in this browser
Prerequisites: the go/no-go gate
Items A1-A5, C1, C3, and D1-D3 are prerequisites and function as a go/no-go gate. The rest can be completed in parallel during the structuring phase. The typical timeline runs from week 1 (initial screening) to weeks 10-12 (trust committee approval).
0 of 55 (0%)
A · Legal (15 items)
B · Financial (12 items)
B8 and B11 deserve attention. The DD requires a minimum DSCR of 1.3x while the red flag triggers below 1.2x: there is a band between 1.2x and 1.3x where a project is not automatically rejected but does fail the checklist. And B11 is the item Soling del Sinu needed: the batteries exploded in Mucura in October 2023.
C · Technical (10 items)
C3 is the critical gate of all of Phase 1. And C7 is the reason this site's financial model omits inverter replacement: the warranty is 10 years over a 25-year flow, so replacement exists — but no source states its cost, and so one is not invented.
D · Community (8 items)
D5 connects to red flag #3: less than 70% support in assembly halts the process.
E · Environmental (5 items)
F · Regulatory (5 items)
Progress saves in this browser's local storage: it is not sent to any server, not shared with CleantechHUB, and is lost if you clear the site's data. It does not replace the formal due diligence record. PDF export is not available on this page — it requires a library this page does not load — ; to take it on paper, use your browser's print function: the print stylesheet expands all collapsed sections, including those you have closed.
Typical due diligence timeline
| Phase | Duration | Items | Responsible | Deliverable |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Initial screening | Weeks 1-2 | A1, C1, C3, D1-D3 | CTH VB team | Go/no-go report |
| Legal due diligence | Weeks 3-6 | A2-A15 | Regulatory attorney + CTH | Complete legal report |
| Technical due diligence | Weeks 3-8 | C2, C4-C10 | Solar engineer + CTH | Technical report with preliminary design |
| Financial due diligence | Weeks 4-8 | B1-B12 | CTH + financial advisor | Audited financial model |
| Community due diligence | Weeks 2-8 | D4-D8 | CTH community team | Approved participation plan |
| Environmental due diligence | Weeks 4-10 | E1-E5 | Environmental consultant | EIA and baseline |
| Regulatory due diligence | Weeks 3-8 | F1-F5 | Regulatory attorney | Compliance report |
| Committee approval | Weeks 10-12 | Comprehensive review | Trust committee | Approval resolution |
Post-investment governance
Monitoring does not end at disbursement — and automatic alerts are what separates this model from the four problem projects on the map
Operational
Real-time generation data via IoT/SCADA platform. Monthly generation report vs. P50/P90 projection. Automatic alert if generation falls below 85% of P50 — the same threshold Phase 2 activation requires: actual generation within 10% of estimated P50.
Financial
Monthly PPA collection and revenue distribution report. Quarterly DSCR and debt covenant monitoring. Semi-annual CPC NAV calculation — the basis for redemption after the 5-year lock-up.
Community
Attendance at quarterly community assemblies, with a minimum of 1 CTH representative. Annual satisfaction survey. Annual governance capacity assessment, which is one of the Phase 2 activation criteria.
ESG
Quarterly measurement of avoided emissions with the updated emission factor. Annual IRIS+ and SDG metrics report. Biennial carbon credit verification, if the project is registered with Verra or Gold Standard.
We have published
what fails
The gaps in this material are flagged where they appear, not hidden in a footnote. If you find one we did not mark, say so.