Q&A with Andressa Ferraz, Global Product Manager, BESS-as-a-Service, ABB Electrification Service
- What’s the one thing most companies consistently get wrong about their energy strategy that undermines their decarbonization efforts?
In my experience, the biggest misstep is treating decarbonization as a compliance exercise rather than a business transformation. The Business Breakthrough Barometer shows 40% of companies cite weak investment cases as their main barrier — they’re so focused on regulatory requirements that they miss the operational and financial benefits.
I see this constantly: companies rush into high-profile renewable projects without understanding their energy baseline or fixing basic inefficiencies first. Meanwhile, Wood Mackenzie reports transformer costs rising 77% since 2019, with 6-year wait times, yet many organizations still plan like they can simply replace aging infrastructure when needed.
The pattern I see with successful transformations is starting with comprehensive energy assessments before making major infrastructure investments. Companies that succeed in their decarbonization journeys treat energy as a strategic capability, not a cost center to minimize.
- What does good timing actually look like in terms of energy projects, and does it really matter more than the technology itself?
Timing matters more than technology. Good timing means starting with what’s broken today, not what might be optimal tomorrow. Having a clear understanding of this is central to why we decided to launch an Advisory business under our Electrification Service division. When we work with customers, we work as a consultative partner. We always begin with comprehensive assessments to understand actual vulnerabilities in their systems, irrespective of the products they’re using and who they are made by, before recommending technological upgrades.
The successful sequence is to assess, pilot, prove, and then scale. Start with operational improvements, then move to targeted pilots like energy storage for peak shaving that demonstrate clear value. I’ve seen companies install solar panels while their building systems hemorrhage energy. This is using expensive equipment to solve the wrong problems.
The choice of technology becomes obvious once organizations understand their actual needs and constraints.
- Your BESS-as-a-Service model challenges the idea that companies need to own critical infrastructure. Are we seeing the death of the asset-heavy industrial model?
I wouldn’t say death, but definitely evolution. The traditional model made sense when infrastructure was predictable, and replacement timelines were manageable. Now ownership often becomes a liability rather than an asset because of ongoing issues in the supply chain.
Many organizations are realizing they don’t need to own a battery system to control their energy portfolio — they need guaranteed performance and predictable costs without the capital risk. Service-based models transfer that risk to providers who can manage it more efficiently through scale and specialization.
So yes, the asset-heavy industrial model may be on the decline, but it’s being replaced by something smarter: companies focusing capital on what differentiates them and accessing critical infrastructure as a service. Energy storage, for most businesses, is enablement technology, not competitive advantage.
- What’s the biggest blind spot you see when advising senior executives on energy strategy?
I still see some leaders thinking about energy the same way they did 20 years ago, which is a utility bill to minimize. Most executives understand digital transformation and supply chain optimization, but when it comes to energy, they default to procurement thinking and focus on the lowest upfront cost instead of total capability.
What’s missing is the revenue opportunity. Smart energy storage systems can generate income by monetizing market participation and grid services. Companies that understand this are turning their energy systems into profit centers.
There’s also a fundamental misunderstanding of risk. Executives worry about the capital cost of energy infrastructure while ignoring that a single outage can cost more than years of energy investments. Our Value of Reliability survey found that unplanned downtime costs industrial businesses $125,000 per hour — this means that an eight-hour outage can cost a million dollars.
- You work across different markets with varying policies and incentives. Where do you see the biggest disconnect between what companies need and what systems deliver?
The biggest disconnect is between the speed of business needs and the pace of policy frameworks. Companies need flexible energy solutions today, but regulatory systems are still designed for centralized, predictable energy from decades ago.
In Germany, battery storage faces the BKZ construction fee — up to €140,000 per MW that generation assets don’t pay, despite storage providing grid stability services. Meanwhile, in the UK, grid connection delays can stretch projects by years when businesses need solutions in months.
There’s also a mismatch in how energy markets compensate value. Current electricity markets pay for electricity generation but offer little compensation for storage or flexibility services that stabilize the grid. Meanwhile, policies mandate renewable energy without addressing practical implications: governments set carbon targets but leave companies to solve reliability problems independently. Solar and wind are intermittent, yet businesses need 24/7 power with inadequate support for managing this complexity.
- What’s the most important question companies should ask themselves about their energy strategy?
If our energy supply was cut for 8 hours, what would it cost us? This question forces companies to think beyond cost optimization to business continuity and resilience.
Most companies will scrutinize every penny of their monthly energy costs while completely ignoring the potential catastrophic losses from outages. They treat energy as an expense to minimize rather than a critical business function to protect.
The question that separates strategic companies from reactive ones is whether their energy strategy supports broader business objectives, including operational resilience, competitive positioning, and long-term sustainability targets. Energy shouldn’t be managed in isolation — it should enable growth, improve reliability, and support decarbonization goals.
For more information: https://new.abb.com/service/electrification
More news stories can be found here: https://essmag.co.uk/category/news/
