mata788 PERMATA123 PERJAKA188 slot88resmi slot88resmi hati108 login Situs toto warga123 RAJAINDO permata123 Akunbos PERMATA123 jokijp slot88resmi slot88jp https://kl108gambar.com https://kl108gambar.com BMW777 Slot gacor seni108 hoki88 seni108

Vol. 4 No. 1 (2026): Article In Press
Articles

Selective CAPEX-to-OPEX Transformation in Electricity Infrastructure Asset Management: Financial Trade-offs and Governance Implications for PT PLN (Persero)

PDF
  • Arie Wibowo,
  • Muhammad Khadafi,
  • Raden Aswin,
  • Kurnia Fajar Afgani,
  • Radia Purbayati
Arie Wibowo
PT. PLN (Persero)
Muhammad Khadafi
PT. PLN (Persero)
Raden Aswin
Institut Teknologi Bandung
Kurnia Fajar Afgani
Sekolah Bisnis dan Manajemen, Institut Teknologi Bandung
Radia Purbayati
Politeknik Negeri Bandung
DOI: https://doi.org/10.58229/jims.v4i1.518

Published 2026-09-01

Keywords

  • CAPEX–OPEX transformation,
  • strategic asset management,
  • electricity infrastructure,
  • servitization,
  • cost–benefit analysis,
  • risk allocation,
  • PT PLN (Persero)
    • ...More
    Less

How to Cite

Wibowo, A., Khadafi, M., Aswin, R., Afgani, K. F., & Purbayati, R. (2026). Selective CAPEX-to-OPEX Transformation in Electricity Infrastructure Asset Management: Financial Trade-offs and Governance Implications for PT PLN (Persero). Journal Integration of Management Studies, 4(1), 137–158. https://doi.org/10.58229/jims.v4i1.518

Abstract

PT PLN (Persero) faces increasing pressure to expand and modernize electricity infrastructure while maintaining financial resilience, operational reliability, and technological adaptability. This study examines the strategic implications of selectively transforming infrastructure investment from capital expenditure (CAPEX)-based ownership toward operational expenditure (OPEX)-oriented arrangements. The study employed an integrated analytical design, combining documentary analysis, global benchmarking, financial scenario simulation, cost–benefit analysis, and regulatory assessment. The simulation assumes total investment requirements of Rp2,780 trillion for 2025–2034, a 2024 CAPEX baseline of Rp63.45 trillion, and the transfer of 70% of generation investment to Independent Power Producers while 30% of generation and 100% of transmission and distribution remain under PLN CAPEX. The results show a clear trade-off. Interest-bearing debt decreases by 6.75%, and the Debt Service Coverage Ratio increases by 3.8%, while OPEX rises by 24.88%, EBITDA declines by 36.99%, operating income by 7.63%, net income by 9.93%, ROA by 7.0%, and leverage increases by 48.1%. The cost–benefit analysis further shows that OPEX generates higher estimated ten-year benefits of Rp1,598.62 trillion than CAPEX at Rp726.45 trillion, whereas CAPEX produces a higher benefit–cost ratio of 17.01 than OPEX at 8.83. These findings indicate that OPEX should not be treated as a universal substitute for CAPEX. Instead, the optimal configuration is a selective portfolio in which OPEX or hybrid arrangements are applied to technologically dynamic and contractible assets, while strategically critical and long-lived infrastructure remains under direct ownership. The study contributes a contingent asset-governance perspective that integrates asset characteristics, financial consequences, risk allocation, and governance requirements in infrastructure investment decisions.

PDF

References

  1. Abednego, M. P., & Ogunlana, S. O. (2006). Good project governance for proper risk allocation in public–private partnerships in Indonesia. International Journal of Project Management, 24(7), 622–634. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.07.010
  2. Alvarez-Alvarado, M. S., Donaldson, D. L., Recalde, A. A., Noriega, H. H., Khan, Z. A., Velasquez, W., & Rodriguez-Gallegos, C. D. (2022). Power system reliability and maintenance evolution: A critical review and future perspectives. IEEE Access, 10, 51922–51950. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3172697
  3. Baines, T. S., Lightfoot, H. W., Benedettini, O., & Kay, J. M. (2009). The servitization of manufacturing: A review of literature and reflection on future challenges. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 20(5), 547–567. https://doi.org/10.1108/17410380910960984
  4. Brunekreeft, G., & Rammerstorfer, M. (2021). OPEX-risk as a source of CAPEX-bias in monopoly regulation. Competition and Regulation in Network Industries, 22(1), 20–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/1783591720983184
  5. Cambini, C., Meletiou, A., Bompard, E., & Masera, M. (2016). Market and regulatory factors influencing smart-grid investment in Europe: Evidence from pilot projects and implications for reform. Utilities Policy, 40, 36–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jup.2016.03.003
  6. De Oliveira-De Jesus, P. M., & Antunes, C. H. (2018). Economic valuation of smart grid investments on electricity markets. Sustainable Energy, Grids and Networks, 16, 70–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.segan.2018.05.003
  7. Dinçer, H., Krishankumar, R., Yüksel, S., & Ecer, F. (2025). Evaluating smart grid investment drivers and creating effective policies via a fuzzy multi-criteria approach. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 208, 115052. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2024.115052
  8. Favoretto, C., Mendes, G. H. S., Oliveira, M. G., Cauchick-Miguel, P. A., & Coreynen, W. (2022). From servitization to digital servitization: How digitalization transforms companies' transition towards services. Industrial Marketing Management, 102, 104–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2022.01.003
  9. Fleta-Asín, J., & Muñoz, F. (2021). Renewable energy public–private partnerships in developing countries: Determinants of private investment. Sustainable Development, 29(4), 653–670. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2165
  10. Gebauer, H., Fleisch, E., & Friedli, T. (2005). Overcoming the service paradox in manufacturing companies. European Management Journal, 23(1), 14–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2004.12.006
  11. Giner, B., Merello, P., & Pardo, F. (2019). Assessing the impact of operating lease capitalization with dynamic Monte Carlo simulation. Journal of Business Research, 101, 836–845. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.11.049
  12. Górowski, I., Kurek, B., & Szarucki, M. (2022). The impact of a new accounting standard on assets, liabilities and leverage of companies: Evidence from energy industry. Energies, 15(4), 1293. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15041293
  13. Kohtamäki, M., Parida, V., Oghazi, P., Gebauer, H., & Baines, T. (2019). Digital servitization business models in ecosystems: A theory of the firm. Journal of Business Research, 104, 380–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.06.027
  14. Kolagar, M., Parida, V., & Sjödin, D. (2022). Ecosystem transformation for digital servitization: A systematic review, integrative framework, and future research agenda. Journal of Business Research, 146, 176–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.03.067
  15. Leiva Vilaplana, J. A., Yang, G., & Ackom, E. (2025). From investment to net benefits: A review of guidelines and methodologies for cost–benefit analysis in the electricity sector. Energy Research & Social Science, 124, 104052. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2025.104052
  16. Leiva Vilaplana, J. A., Yang, G., Monaco, R., Bergaentzlé, C. M., Ackom, E., & Morais, H. (2025). Digital versus grid investments in electricity distribution grids: Informed decision-making through system dynamics. Applied Energy, 386, 125536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2025.125536
  17. Lopes, A. I., & Penela, D. (2025). The impact of IFRS 16 on lessees' financial information: A single-industry study. Advances in Accounting, 68, 100803. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adiac.2024.100803
  18. Mirshekali, H., Mortensen, L. K., & Shaker, H. R. (2024). Reliability-aware multi-objective approach for predictive asset management: A Danish distribution grid case study. Applied Energy, 358, 122556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2023.122556
  19. Monaco, R., Bergaentzlé, C., Leiva Vilaplana, J. A., Ackom, E., & Nielsen, P. S. (2024). Digitalization of power distribution grids: Barrier analysis, ranking and policy recommendations. Energy Policy, 188, 114083. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2024.114083
  20. Morales-Díaz, J., & Zamora-Ramírez, C. (2018). The impact of IFRS 16 on key financial ratios: A new methodological approach. Accounting in Europe, 15(1), 105–133. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449480.2018.1433307
  21. Mortensen, L. K., Sundsgaard, K., Shaker, H. R., Hansen, J. Z., & Yang, G. (2024). Designing digitally enabled proactive maintenance systems in power distribution grids: A scoping literature review. Energy Reports, 12, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2024.08.044
  22. Neely, A. (2008). Exploring the financial consequences of the servitization of manufacturing. Operations Management Research, 1(2), 103–118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12063-009-0015-5
  23. Ng, A., & Loosemore, M. (2007). Risk allocation in the private provision of public infrastructure. International Journal of Project Management, 25(1), 66–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.06.005
  24. Nur, S., Burton, B., & Bergmann, A. (2023). Evidence on optimal risk allocation models for Indonesian geothermal projects under PPP contracts. Utilities Policy, 81, 101511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jup.2023.101511
  25. aschou, T., Rapaccini, M., Adrodegari, F., & Saccani, N. (2020). Digital servitization in manufacturing: A systematic literature review and research agenda. Industrial Marketing Management, 89, 278–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.02.012
  26. Reim, W., Parida, V., & Örtqvist, D. (2015). Product–Service Systems (PSS) business models and tactics—A systematic literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 97, 61–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.003
  27. Shaghaghi, A., Taghitahooneh, M., Yahyaeifar, M., & Dashti, R. (2024). Management of aging assets in power distribution systems: A comprehensive review. Energy Strategy Reviews, 55, 101529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2024.101529
  28. Singh, M., Jiao, J., Klobasa, M., & Frietsch, R. (2022). Servitization of energy sector: Emerging service business models and startup's participation. Energies, 15(7), 2705. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15072705
  29. Sklyar, A., Kowalkowski, C., Tronvoll, B., & Sörhammar, D. (2019). Organizing for digital servitization: A service ecosystem perspective. Journal of Business Research, 104, 450–460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.02.012
  30. Tukker, A. (2004). Eight types of product–service system: Eight ways to sustainability? Experiences from SusProNet. Business Strategy and the Environment, 13(4), 246–260. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.414
  31. Vandermerwe, S., & Rada, J. (1988). Servitization of business: Adding value by adding services. European Management Journal, 6(4), 314–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/0263-2373(88)90033-3
  32. Visnjic, I., Jovanovic, M., Neely, A., & Engwall, M. (2017). What brings the value to outcome-based contract providers? Value drivers in outcome business models. International Journal of Production Economics, 192, 169–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.12.008
  33. Wibowo, A., & Mohamed, S. (2010). Risk criticality and allocation in privatized water supply projects in Indonesia. International Journal of Project Management, 28(5), 504–513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2009.08.003
  34. Institutional and regulatory references
  35. PT PLN (Persero). (2017). IPP procurement division. PT PLN (Persero).
  36. PT PLN (Persero). (2021). Green finance framework. PT PLN (Persero).
  37. PT PLN (Persero). (2022). Pedoman good corporate governance (GCG). PT PLN (Persero).
  38. PT PLN (Persero). (2024). Laporan keuangan konsolidasian PT PLN (Persero) dan entitas anak. PT PLN (Persero). These PLN documents were also already included among the source materials of the original manuscript.

Most read articles by the same author(s)