Skip to content

Climate Risk Scenario Data: Industry Demand, Providers, Gaps, and PGW Opportunity

Research Date: 2026-03-17

Executive Summary

The climate risk analytics market is projected to grow from USD ~16 billion (2026) to USD ~79 billion by 2035 (CAGR 19.5%). Physical risk analysis services hold 61.3% market share. Despite this explosive growth, a critical gap persists: existing providers rely on coarse-resolution global climate models (GCMs) and statistical/parametric approaches for tropical cyclone risk, rather than high-resolution dynamical simulations that capture realistic storm structure, wind fields, rainfall, and storm surge. This is exactly where PGW (pseudo-global-warming) high-resolution typhoon simulations can create differentiated value.

1. Energy Sector — Utilities and Power Companies

Pain Points

  • Cascading blackouts: Extreme typhoons trigger long-lasting power outages; full restoration depends heavily on maximum wind velocity. Compound hazards (TC + blackout + heatwave) are projected to increase 23x over the 21st century (Nature Communications, 2022).
  • Sociodemographic disparities: Annual outage costs projected to rise from $6.2 billion (historical) to $11+ billion under 3°C warming (PNAS, 2025).
  • Renewable integration risk: Exceeding 45% solar without storage worsens catastrophic blackout probability during climate extremes.
  • Legacy infrastructure: 43% of energy/utility executives rank sustainability/climate as top long-term concern (Protiviti Top Risks 2026).

What Data They Need

  • Forward-looking wind speed return periods at asset level (substations, transmission lines, generation plants)
  • Compound hazard scenarios: sequential TC + heatwave + flooding probabilities
  • Spatially explicit damage functions: linking wind/rain intensity to outage probability at grid-component level
  • Climate-adjusted design standards for new infrastructure (not just historical return periods)

Current Gap

Most utility resilience planning uses historical storm databases or parametric wind models. PNAS (2020) found that "hurricane-induced power outage risk under climate change is primarily driven by uncertainty in projections of future hurricane frequency." Utilities need physically consistent, high-resolution storm scenarios — not statistical extrapolations.

PGW Value Add

  • Provide realistic future typhoon wind fields at 1-3km resolution over specific grid infrastructure
  • Enable utilities to test hardening strategies against physically plausible future storms (not statistical abstractions)
  • Hardening just 1% of critical lines can reduce worst-case outage likelihood by 5-20x (Nature Energy, 2023) — but only if the right lines are identified using realistic future storm scenarios

Key Sources

2. Offshore Wind and Renewables

Pain Points

  • Over 40% of commissioned and planned offshore wind farms in Asia and Europe have already encountered winds exceeding Class III design thresholds (37.5 m/s) — Nature Communications, 2025
  • 37% increase in turbine yielding probability and 13% increase in buckling probability from a 20-year return period storm under climate change (Nature, 2024)
  • Class T (Typhoon) certification requires turbines to withstand 57 m/s sustained winds (79.8 m/s gusts), but climate change is shifting return periods — a historical 20-year storm may recur every 12.7 years
  • Taiwan Strait: increasing mean and extreme wind speeds create a dual challenge — greater energy potential but heightened structural risk
  • Taiwan sees 3-4 typhoons/year; Japan 2-3 direct hits (plus 8-10 near-misses)

What Data They Need

  • Future extreme wind speed return periods (U50, U100) at turbine locations under multiple warming scenarios
  • Joint wind-wave hazard profiles for foundation and tower design
  • Typhoon track and intensity projections at site-specific resolution (not basin-averaged)
  • Updated IEC 61400 design parameters reflecting future climate, not historical
  • Time-varying risk profiles across 25-30 year turbine design life

Current Gap

IEC design standards are based on historical wind climate. There is no standardized methodology to incorporate forward-looking climate projections into Class T design parameters. Parametric wind models "fall short in capturing intricate wind-terrain interactions" (ScienceDirect, 2024). Developers need site-specific, physically modelled future typhoon wind fields — especially for the Taiwan Strait, South China Sea, and Japanese coast.

PGW Value Add

  • Site-specific future typhoon wind/wave scenarios at 1-3km resolution for individual wind farm locations
  • Physically consistent storm structure (eye wall, rain bands, wind-terrain interactions) that parametric models cannot capture
  • Design-life scenario packages: how does the wind hazard at a specific site change between 2030-2060?
  • Critical for Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, and Philippines markets where typhoon class turbines are mandatory

Key Sources

3. Ports and Shipping

Pain Points

  • $81 billion of global trade at risk annually from climate-induced port disruptions; at least $122 billion in economic activity (Nature Climate Change, 2023)
  • 32% of port-specific risk ($7.5B/year globally) attributed to tropical cyclones (Nature Comms E&E, 2022)
  • Port closures: Shanghai/Ningbo disrupted 5-6 days/year from extreme winds; Port of New Orleans closed ~4 months after Katrina
  • Cascade effects: Typhoon Yagi (2024) hit Vietnam, China, Philippines sequentially — disrupting factories, logistics, agriculture across SE Asia
  • 100-year wave heights projected to increase up to 1.5m (10%) in Eastern/Western Pacific by 2050 (Nature Scientific Reports, 2024)
  • Bay of Bengal: 10-fold drop in storm-tide return periods under middle-to-high emission pathways; critical infrastructure (including nuclear plants) facing up to 78% increase in extreme storm-tide levels

What Data They Need

  • Storm surge and inundation maps for port facilities under future climate scenarios
  • Extreme wave height projections for breakwater and berth design
  • Port downtime probability under different warming levels
  • Compound flood risk: storm surge + river flooding + sea level rise at specific port locations
  • Supply chain cascade models: how TC disruption at one hub propagates through the network

Current Gap

Multi-hazard risk assessments for ports "remain data-intensive, local, and hard to transfer" (Frontiers in Climate, 2025). Models "often stop at direct asset damage, overlooking interdependencies." Port operators need high-resolution, event-based scenarios showing exactly how a future typhoon would impact their specific facility — not basin-averaged statistics.

PGW Value Add

  • Event-based storm surge and rainfall scenarios for specific port locations under future warming
  • Physically consistent wind + rain + surge from the same simulated storm (not separate hazard layers stitched together)
  • What-if scenarios: "What would Typhoon Mangkhut look like at +2°C warming hitting Hong Kong port?"
  • Directly applicable to port design standards, insurance underwriting, and business continuity planning

Key Sources

4. Supply Chain Resilience — Asia Pacific

Pain Points

  • Asia recorded $91 billion in natural disaster damages in 2024 (Crisis24), surpassing the 10-year average
  • Likelihood of severe typhoon precipitation expected to triple by 2040 in some areas (McKinsey)
  • Single climate events cascade through interconnected supply chains: typhoons cause power outages + logistics disruptions → production halts in manufacturing hubs → shipping delays across APAC
  • Typhoon Yagi (2024): struck Philippines, China (Hainan), Vietnam sequentially; Vietnam's Red River Delta (Hanoi, Hai Phong) manufacturing/logistics hubs severely disrupted
  • Typhoons causing billions in agricultural losses and cascading food supply chain disruption (FreightWaves)

What Data They Need

  • Regional TC hazard projections for key manufacturing/logistics nodes (Pearl River Delta, Yangtze Delta, Taiwan, Vietnam, Philippines)
  • Compound risk assessment: wind + rain + flooding + storm surge at facility/node level
  • Network vulnerability analysis: which nodes, if disrupted, cause maximum cascade damage?
  • Seasonal and multi-decadal TC frequency/intensity outlooks for supply chain planning
  • Insurance-grade event scenarios for supply chain insurance and business continuity

Current Gap

McKinsey notes that "risks to infrastructure and supply chains in Asia will increase" but most supply chain risk tools use historical event databases, not forward-looking physically-based scenarios. Companies like Everstream Analytics and Windward track real-time disruptions but lack future-climate projection capability.

PGW Value Add

  • Future typhoon event catalogues for key APAC supply chain corridors
  • "What-if" scenario packages: "What happens to the Pearl River Delta supply chain if Typhoon Mangkhut occurs under +2°C warming?"
  • Node-specific hazard data (wind, rain, flood) that supply chain risk platforms can ingest

Key Sources

5. Climate Risk Analytics Providers — Competitive Landscape

Major Players

Provider Founded/Acquired Key Products Resolution Hazards Pricing
Jupiter Intelligence 2016 ClimateScore Global ~90m flood, varies by hazard 9 hazards (flood, wind, heat, drought, wildfire) 6-figure annual
XDI (Cross Dependency Initiative) Australia Physical risk scores, 175+ countries 5-50m depending on hazard Multi-hazard Enterprise
Moody's RMS RMS acquired 2021 for $2B 400+ risk models, 120 countries Insurance-grade Probabilistic catastrophe 6-figure annual
S&P Global Climanomics — Portfolio climate risk Asset-level Multi-hazard 6-figure annual
MSCI Climate Lab — ESG/climate portfolio — Multi-hazard Enterprise
Climate X UK Spectra platform — Multi-hazard —
Repath — Adaptation payback modelling Asset-level Infrastructure-specific —
Mitiga Solutions — Climate risk for solar/renewables — Multi-hazard —

What They Sell

  • Risk scores per asset (e.g., "this substation has a 12% probability of flooding in 2050 under SSP5-8.5")
  • Financial metrics: OpEx, CapEx, revenue loss, credit risk impacts
  • Portfolio analytics: aggregate risk across thousands of assets
  • Scenario projections: SSP1-2.6, SSP2-4.5, SSP5-8.5 from 2025 to 2100
  • Regulatory compliance: TCFD, ISSB, SEC climate disclosure support

Critical Limitation: CarbonPlan Finding

"Climate risk companies don't always agree" — CarbonPlan found significant disagreement between providers on physical risk scores for the same locations, highlighting that underlying data quality and modeling methodology create material differences in outputs.

What They Do NOT Sell (= The Gap)

  1. High-resolution dynamical typhoon simulations — they use statistical/parametric TC models or coarse GCM output
  2. Physically consistent multi-hazard fields from individual storm events (wind + rain + surge from the same storm)
  3. Event-based "what-if" scenarios showing a specific historical typhoon replayed under future warming
  4. Terrain-resolving wind fields that capture topographic acceleration, rain band structure, eye wall dynamics
  5. PGW-based scenarios that preserve real storm structure while imposing thermodynamic climate change

Key Sources

6. TCFD/Regulatory Drivers

Regulatory Requirements Driving Demand

  • TCFD (now superseded by ISSB/IFRS S2): requires scenario analysis of physical climate risks
  • SEC Climate Disclosure Rule (US): physical risk disclosure for public companies
  • EU CSRD/Taxonomy: climate risk assessment mandatory for EU-reporting companies
  • APRA/HKMA/MAS: Asia-Pacific financial regulators requiring climate stress testing
  • Between 2023-2025, enterprise cloud-based risk analytics deployment increased 44% driven by regulatory compliance needs

What TCFD/ISSB Requires

Companies must disclose: 1. Physical risks under multiple temperature scenarios (1.5°C, 2°C, 4°C) 2. Quantified financial impact of acute events (typhoons, floods) 3. Forward-looking time horizons (2030, 2050, 2100) 4. Resilience of strategy under different climate scenarios

Gap for PGW

Current TCFD disclosures for TC risk rely on statistical models (e.g., Moody's RMS probabilistic event sets) or coarse GCM projections. No provider currently offers dynamically downscaled, event-based TC scenarios as a TCFD-compliant input. This represents a premium data product opportunity.

Key Sources

7. PGW High-Resolution Typhoon Simulations — Strategic Positioning

The Unique Value Proposition

The PGW approach offers advantages that no current climate risk analytics provider delivers:

Feature Current Providers PGW Simulations
TC wind fields Parametric/statistical Dynamically simulated at 1-3km
Storm structure Simplified (Holland model) Full eye wall, rain bands, terrain interaction
Multi-hazard consistency Separate models stitched together Wind, rain, surge from same simulation
"What-if" scenarios Not available Replay real typhoons under +1.5/2/3°C
Terrain effects Ignored or crude Fully resolved topography and coastline
Resolution 5-50m risk scores but based on coarse hazard 1-3km native hazard resolution
Bias GCM biases propagated Historical storm preserved, only thermodynamics changed

Target Product Lines

  1. Offshore Wind Design Packages ($$$)
  2. Site-specific future TC wind/wave scenarios for IEC Class T design verification
  3. Buyers: offshore wind developers (Orsted, CLP, TPC, JERA), certification bodies (DNV)

  4. Geography: Taiwan Strait, South China Sea, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam

  5. Port/Coastal Infrastructure Scenarios ($$$)

  6. Event-based storm surge + rainfall + wind scenarios for specific port facilities
  7. Buyers: port authorities (Hong Kong, Shenzhen, Shanghai, Singapore), engineering firms (AECOM, Arup)

  8. Use case: design standard updates, insurance negotiation, business continuity

  9. Utility Grid Resilience Scenarios ($$)

  10. Future TC wind fields over grid infrastructure for hardening prioritisation
  11. Buyers: power utilities (CLP, Taipower, TEPCO, HK Electric), grid operators

  12. Use case: identify which 1% of lines to harden for maximum resilience gain

  13. Supply Chain Stress Test Scenarios ($$)

  14. Future TC event catalogues for key APAC manufacturing/logistics corridors
  15. Buyers: global manufacturers, logistics companies, supply chain risk platforms (Everstream, Windward)

  16. Use case: supply chain insurance, BCP planning, TCFD disclosure

  17. Data-as-a-Service to Existing Providers ($$$)

  18. License high-resolution PGW TC hazard layers to Jupiter, XDI, Moody's, etc.
  19. They lack this capability internally — it would be a data partnership, not competition
  20. Monetisation: per-region event set licensing or API access

Competitive Moat

  • PGW methodology expertise + operational WRF/MPAS/CPAS modelling capability is rare
  • Academic teams do PGW research but do not productise
  • Commercial providers use statistical methods — dynamical downscaling at 1-3km for individual storms is computationally expensive and requires domain expertise
  • The combination of real historical storms + future thermodynamic perturbation is uniquely credible for stakeholder communication

Market Sizing Indicative

  • Climate risk analytics market: ~$16B (2026) → $79B (2035)
  • Physical risk segment: 61.3% = ~$10B (2026)
  • TC-specific physical risk: conservatively 10-15% of physical risk market = $1-1.5B addressable market (2026)
  • Premium for high-resolution dynamical data: could command 2-5x premium over statistical products

8. Key Gaps Summary

Gap Who Feels It Severity
No forward-looking TC wind fields at infrastructure resolution Offshore wind developers, utilities Critical
Parametric models miss terrain/topographic wind acceleration Port operators, coastal infrastructure High
Separate hazard layers (wind ≠ rain ≠ surge) from different models All sectors High
Design standards based on historical climate only Offshore wind (IEC), port engineering Critical
No "what-if" event replay capability for future warming Insurance, TCFD disclosure, BCP High
Provider disagreement due to underlying data quality All sectors (CarbonPlan finding) Medium-High
APAC TC risk poorly represented vs. Atlantic hurricanes APAC energy, ports, supply chain High

Report compiled from 15+ web searches across academic literature, industry reports, and commercial provider analysis. Some searches were intermittently unavailable; key Asia-specific offshore wind and supply chain data supplemented from successful searches and domain knowledge.