Capability
Sustainable Energy & Infrastructure
Infrastructure rarely fails at commissioning. It fails in year three, when the yield assumption turns out to have been optimistic, the liquidated-damages window has closed and the alternatives have gone. We work to prevent that, from the first assessment through to operational handover.
In short
The problem
A project is on the table with a payback that looks compelling. The model was prepared by a party who benefits from it proceeding, and the assumptions that will actually determine the outcome — yield, load profile, regulatory route, grid access, contract structure — sit in cells nobody has independently tested.
Why it matters
This is a twenty-five year commitment justified by a fifteen-minute calculation. The consequences of getting it wrong do not appear at handover, when they could still be argued about. They appear in year three to seven, by which time the performance guarantee has expired, the contractor has moved on, and the capital is sunk.
Who typically needs this
- Industrial and manufacturing groups evaluating captive generation
- Data centres with firm-power and sustainability obligations on a fixed build timeline
- Infrastructure developers and concession holders
- Investors and lenders requiring independent technical diligence
- Government bodies and PSUs procuring energy assets under public scrutiny
- Owners with a project already underway that is not going to plan
What we do
- Energy strategy
- Technical due diligence
- Feasibility assessment
- Owner's engineer support
- Solar EPC advisory
- Battery energy storage strategy
- Open access assessment
- Group captive evaluation
- Procurement and tender support
- Construction oversight and commissioning review
Infrastructure projects rarely fail for interesting reasons.
They fail because a system was sized against sanctioned load instead of the interval curve. Because a yield figure was taken at P50 and never stress-tested. Because the contract left a gap between the civil and electrical scope that nobody owned until it mattered. Because acceptance was granted on a good day in April rather than on a performance test over a representative period.
Each of these is knowable in advance. None of them is a technology problem.
What we are actually selling
Not panels, and not construction. What an owner is buying at the point of decision is certainty — a defensible view of what the asset will produce, what it will cost, what could go wrong, and who carries each risk.
That is why the most valuable finding in an early assessment is often that the project should be smaller, structured differently, or not built at all.
Why our numbers are different
Our venture Srenergies delivers EPC work. That matters here in a specific way: the yield, availability and degradation assumptions in our models are produced by people who would have to deliver against them.
It also constrains us. Where Srenergies could bid for work we are advising on, we disclose it before appointment and step out of the evaluation. We do not supervise ourselves.
What you actually receive
Services describe activity. These are the artefacts that exist at the end, and that you own.
-
Energy strategy
A multi-year position on how the site or group meets its energy requirement — generation, contracting, efficiency and storage compared on lifetime cost, with the sequence in which they should be pursued.
-
Feasibility assessment
Technical and commercial viability with yield stated at P50 and P90, sizing derived from the interval load curve, and the regulatory route confirmed for your state rather than assumed.
-
Financial and commercial model
A working model handed to you, not a summary of outputs. Sensitivities on tariff trajectory, yield, degradation and surcharge exposure, with the breakpoints identified — the values at which the case stops working.
-
Technical due diligence
Independent assessment for lenders, investors or acquirers. Written on the assumption another engineer will scrutinise it, because one usually does.
-
Open access & group captive evaluation
Route comparison including banking rules, surcharge exposure and the ongoing compliance obligations of each structure — including the annual criteria that can reclassify a group captive project retrospectively.
-
Battery storage strategy
Sizing against the actual tariff structure and load profile, with cycling assumptions reconciled against warranty terms and augmentation cost budgeted rather than discovered.
-
Technical specification & tender documentation
Specifications written before tender rather than adapted from a bidder's proposal, with the scope interfaces — civil, electrical, grid — explicitly assigned.
-
Procurement support & bid evaluation
Evaluation on lifetime cost, contractor delivery record and financial standing. A materially low bid is treated as a risk indicator rather than a saving.
How we approach the work
-
We ask whether the project should exist before asking how to build it
The most valuable output of an early assessment is often a recommendation not to proceed, or to do something smaller. Energy efficiency, load shifting, or a contract renegotiation frequently deliver a large share of the benefit without the capital. A firm that only earns when the project proceeds will not tell you this.
-
Yield is stated at P90, not only at P50
A P50 estimate is a coin flip. Financing is assessed at P90 and so should your board be. We state both, name the data source, and model soiling and degradation to site conditions rather than adopting a standard loss table. Where the case only survives at P50, that is the finding.
-
Sizing follows the interval load curve, not the connected load
The most common sizing error is a system specified against sanctioned or connected load. Self-consumption is determined by the 15-minute profile — shift patterns, seasonal variation, weekly shutdowns. Oversizing produces export at a tariff that makes the payback collapse, and it is not recoverable after commissioning.
-
The regulatory route is a design input, not a compliance step
Captive, group captive, open access and third-party structures each carry different surcharge exposure, banking rules and ongoing obligations that vary by state and change during a project's life. Group captive in particular requires the 26 per cent equity and 51 per cent consumption criteria to be maintained annually — a condition that has retrospectively reclassified more than one project.
How a project advances
Projects move through defined gates. Each has a question it exists to answer, the evidence required to pass, and the condition under which we would recommend stopping.
- 01
Concept screening
Is there a plausible case at all, and is this the right intervention?
Evidence to pass
Interval load data, current tariff structure and its trajectory, available roof and land, indicative regulatory route. Two weeks, not two months.
We would stop if
The load profile does not support meaningful self-consumption, the tariff arbitrage is thin, or an efficiency intervention would deliver most of the benefit for a fraction of the capital.
- 02
Pre-feasibility
What size and structure, and does the regulatory route actually exist here?
Evidence to pass
Preliminary yield estimate, sizing against the 15-minute load curve rather than connected load, indicative capex, comparison of captive, group captive, open access and third-party routes for your state.
We would stop if
The regulatory route carries a policy risk you cannot absorb, or grid evacuation capacity is unavailable within the required timeline.
- 03
Feasibility and business case
Does it clear the hurdle rate on assumptions we are willing to defend?
Evidence to pass
Bankable yield assessment stated at both P50 and P90, soiling and degradation modelled to site conditions, full model with sensitivities and identified breakpoints, land title and connectivity confirmed.
We would stop if
The case only works at P50 with no headroom, land or title cannot be cleared, or the payback depends on a tariff assumption with no regulatory support.
- 04
Investment decision
Is the risk allocation acceptable, and who carries what?
Evidence to pass
Contract structure, performance guarantee terms, liquidated-damages caps tested against real exposure, insurance, and the ongoing compliance obligations of the chosen structure.
We would stop if
Liquidated damages are capped too low to change contractor behaviour, or performance guarantees expire before degradation would become visible.
- 05
Procurement
Are we buying capability or buying a number?
Evidence to pass
Technical specification written before tender rather than adopted from a bidder, bid evaluation on total lifetime cost, contractor financial and delivery-record assessment.
We would stop if
The lowest bid is materially below the others, which usually means scope has been dropped or the contractor is under-bidding to secure work.
- 06
Construction
Is what is being built what was specified?
Evidence to pass
Inspection at defined hold points, factory acceptance and material verification, non-conformance tracked to closure rather than to acknowledgement.
We would stop if
Substitutions are made without engineering approval, or non-conformances accumulate faster than they close.
- 07
Commissioning
Does it perform, measured properly?
Evidence to pass
Performance ratio tested over a representative period under agreed irradiance conditions — not a single good day. Capacity and availability tests witnessed. Punch list closed before final acceptance.
We would stop if
Acceptance is being sought on a demonstration rather than a test, or on a period unrepresentative of operating conditions.
- 08
Operational transition
Can the asset be operated and its performance defended?
Evidence to pass
Monitoring at string or block level, O&M scope and spares defined, warranty and guarantee register with claim windows diarised, baseline performance recorded.
We would stop if
Nobody internally owns asset performance, in which case underperformance will be discovered by the accounts rather than by the plant.
How we deliver
Our full delivery model →Every engagement runs on the same model, whatever the discipline — one accountable partner, a fixed reporting cadence, a live risk register and a decision log.
Energy work spans the full lifecycle, from first screening through to operational handover. We are engaged at any point — including on projects already in construction that are not going to plan, where the first task is establishing what is actually true.
- 01 Discovery
- 02 Assessment
- 03 Strategy
- 04 Planning
- 05 Implementation
- 06 Governance
- 07 Handover and improvement
- One accountable partner, end to end
- Fortnightly written reporting, including the quiet weeks
- We agree in advance what would make us recommend stopping
Who this is for, and what they arrive with
-
Manufacturing & industrial
Energy among the top three controllable costs, with captive and open access options poorly compared and usually evaluated by whoever is selling one of them.
-
Data centres
Round-the-clock renewable supply under current open access rules, storage sized against real load profile rather than nameplate, on a build programme that will not move.
-
Infrastructure developers
Financing conditional on technical diligence that will be scrutinised by a lender's own engineer, where optimistic assumptions surface at the worst possible moment.
-
Government & PSUs
Procurement that must be technically defensible under audit years later, with specifications written before tender rather than adopted from a preferred bidder.
-
Investors & lenders
Technical diligence where the financial model's weakest assumptions are engineering ones the deal team cannot independently assess.
-
Commercial real estate
Multi-tenant metering and billing complexity that determines whether a technically sound project is commercially viable at all.
Standards & practice
- Yield assessment stated at P50 and P90 with named data sources
- Performance ratio testing over representative periods, witnessed
- Technical specifications authored before tender, not adopted from bidders
- Independent of equipment vendors and EPC contractors in owner's engineer roles
- State-specific open access, banking and group captive compliance
- Engineering, procurement and construction delivered in-house through our venture Srenergies — our assumptions are written by people who carry delivery risk
- Group captive and open access structuring under current state regulation, including the ongoing compliance obligations most models ignore
- Independent of equipment vendors and EPC contractors when acting as owner's engineer
- Performance assessed against asset life rather than against commissioning
Questions buyers ask about this work
When should a project NOT proceed?
When the case only clears the hurdle rate at P50 with no headroom. When the load profile does not support self-consumption and the export tariff is where the payback actually lives. When grid evacuation is not available within the build window. When land title or conversion is unresolved and being treated as a formality. And when an efficiency measure or a tariff renegotiation would deliver most of the benefit without the capital. Each of these is a recommendation not to proceed, and it is the least popular advice in this field.
What are the most common reasons these projects fail?
In rough order of frequency: sizing against connected load rather than the interval curve; yield assumptions taken at P50 and never stress-tested; regulatory or surcharge changes that the commercial model had no headroom to absorb; interface gaps in the contract structure between civil, electrical and grid scope; acceptance granted on a demonstration rather than a performance test; and no internal owner of asset performance after handover, so degradation is discovered by the accounts department. Almost none of these are equipment failures.
Can you work with our existing EPC contractor?
Yes, and it is a common engagement. Acting as owner's engineer alongside a contractor you have already selected is straightforward, and our independence is the point — we are not bidding for the construction scope in that role. Where our own venture Srenergies could be a candidate for delivery, that is disclosed before we are appointed and you remain free to tender competitively.
Can you review a project that is already underway?
Yes. An independent review mid-construction is worth more than one after handover, because there is still time to act. The first step is establishing what is actually true rather than what is being reported — measured progress, non-conformance status, and whether the contract still protects you given where the project has reached.
Can you help recover a troubled project?
Yes, and we will tell you early whether recovery is realistic. Recovery work starts with an honest technical and commercial position: what has been built, what it will actually produce, what the contract still entitles you to, and whether the remaining spend is better directed at completion or at containment. Some troubled projects should be completed to a lower specification, and some should be stopped.
Do you only advise, or do you manage implementation?
Both. We act as owner's engineer and technical adviser on projects delivered by others. Where you want the work delivered, our venture Srenergies performs EPC. The two roles are kept separate on any given project: we do not supervise ourselves, and if Srenergies is bidding we are not evaluating the bids.