The practical conditions behind the investment case

A rooftop opportunity needs more than available area and an attractive energy model. I want to understand the building’s expected use, the authority to grant access, planned roof work and the conditions under which the asset can be maintained. Engineering and legal colleagues own their specialist assessments; my task is to ensure their unresolved questions affect the investment sequence. A site can be promising without being ready for commitment. I prefer to state that difference before it becomes a delivery problem. The fourteen-site programme made the approach concrete: we committed the ready group, retained five prospects for further preparation and declined three. The assessment cost was real even for roofs that did not proceed. That is a development expense to examine, rather than a reason to approve a weak proposal simply because money has already been spent.

A factory’s annual electricity bill does not, by itself, describe the demand available when a solar asset produces. I ask the commercial and engineering teams to examine the relevant operating pattern and to explain how a change in shifts, production or tenancy would affect the proposal. The answer is site-specific and belongs alongside the contractual arrangements and required approvals. My contribution is to make the scenario consequential for the size and timing of our commitment. In one package we accepted 16 MWp rather than the proposed 24 MWp because the revised demand assumptions did not support the larger initial installation. The smaller package still delivered less energy than forecast in its first year. Reporting that difference matters: a more cautious decision is not proof that the remaining assumptions will always be right.

A monitoring system can report that it has lost contact with equipment without establishing whether the equipment has stopped producing. I want those situations distinguished before a dashboard becomes a performance claim. Operating colleagues need a record of the alert, its diagnosis, the action taken and what remains unknown. The ninety-two-site review separated communication interruptions, confirmed equipment issues and unresolved alerts. It also exposed the limits of our earlier baseline, so we did not assign an energy-recovery figure to the repairs. That restraint helped us direct attention to the remaining faults and missing evidence. I fund the operating capacity needed to investigate, while technical staff determine the appropriate work. A senior review should make their priorities clearer, not encourage a reassuring percentage that conceals the unresolved cases beneath it.

Owning equipment on another organisation’s building creates a continuing relationship. Access, maintenance, roof renewal and changes in the host business can matter long after the installation team has left. I work across development, operations and finance so that the people accepting those obligations understand them before the company commits capital. The arrangements need named owners and a practical route for discussing change; a long contract alone does not provide either. My earlier project and commercial roles taught me how easily a responsibility can disappear between teams when everyone believes another party has accepted it. As CEO I ask how those interfaces will work under pressure, including when a customer’s priorities change. The purpose is not to predict every event, but to establish a relationship and operating model capable of responding without pretending that the original proposal remains untouched.