The transition of thermal power systems toward lower-carbon electricity raises a critical strategic question: whether to rely on cross-border electricity imports or reactivate domestic nuclear capacity under supply constraints. This study examines the trade-offs between these alternatives within a sustainable finance framework. A contingent-claim model is developed in which a life insurer provides long-term financing to a biomass-energy supplier, a thermal power plant, and a nuclear power plant operating under carbon-pricing regulation. The framework links electricity-market decisions with financial risk valuation, allowing the joint effects of biomass utilization, carbon regulation, electricity imports, and nuclear-security risks to be evaluated. The results show that biomass integration and tighter carbon regulation reduce short-term profitability in thermal generation but support long-run decarbonization. Cross-border electricity imports improve system flexibility and reduce operational volatility, strengthening the financial position of thermal producers. In contrast, nuclear-security disruptions significantly increase default risk for nuclear assets, reflecting their exposure to operational and regulatory uncertainty. By integrating energy-transition strategies with contingent-claim valuation, the analysis highlights the role of financial intermediation in shaping investment incentives and risk allocation in the electricity sector. The findings suggest that coordinated policies combining market integration, low-carbon transition strategies, and stable financing mechanisms can enhance system resilience.

Biomass is widely recognized as a critical renewable energy source for supporting global decarbonization and energy diversification. However, the financial viability of bioenergy investments depends heavily on how climate policies and sustainable finance mechanisms interact under environmental uncertainty. This study develops a land-constrained bioenergy valuation model to examine the joint effects of carbon pricing, climate finance arrangements, and land-use regulations on the economic sustainability of biomass producers. Environmental and financial policies enter the framework through carbon costs, land-use constraints, and financial intermediation conditions, thereby linking climate regulation to firm-level capital performance. Using a contingent-claim framework, producer equity and financing risks are evaluated to capture the complex effects of market asset volatility on energy investment incentives. The framework is evaluated through a literature-informed baseline calibration and comparative-static numerical analysis; accordingly, the reported results are model-implied comparative-static mechanisms designed to evaluate bioenergy project viability under policy and market uncertainty. The numerical analysis employs a non-region-specific representative benchmark and is intended to identify structural and comparative-static mechanisms rather than to forecast outcomes for a particular geographical market. The results show that higher carbon prices reduce producer viability by increasing operating costs, although this financial strain is partially mitigated by the option-like nature of equity under higher asset volatility. In contrast, improvements in agronomic productivity, greater land availability, and higher biomass market prices enhance investment returns and financing conditions. The findings further indicate that climate policies shape bioenergy deployment not only through physical production costs but also through financial transmission channels and risk-sharing mechanisms. The study contributes to the energy policy and climate finance literature by integrating carbon pricing, land governance, and financial options within a unified analytical framework. The results highlight the importance of policy coordination between renewable energy incentives, sustainable finance management, and carbon regulation to mitigate investment risks in the bioenergy sector.