The months between two turbines belong in the decision

In 2016 I approved a common maintenance calendar across a service portfolio because it simplified staffing and the customer offer. At one six-machine cluster, planned shutdowns then occupied fourteen days of a strong wind period. Safiya Fezqarthi had asked us to examine the local resource pattern before fixing that window. I had treated equal calendar availability as though it meant equal service value. The machines could meet an annual hours measure while the timing still cost the customer useful generation.

I now lead the fictional Vezqamri Wind Energy in Bhavnagar. We own wind-generation assets and provide contracted services, with 410 colleagues and 344 MW of owned capacity. Our FY 2026 exported generation was 812 GWh. Those measures describe different things from the company's ₹388 crore revenue or its board-approved spending programmes. Seven functional heads report to me, and I serve as one executive director under a separate chair.

The work on these pages concerns the obligations hidden by an attractive portfolio account. A repowered site needs a transition period as well as a future annual yield. A route across farmland needs the actual relationships behind a signed aggregate proposal. A larger sales opportunity can leave the business too dependent on one counterparty. A year with less exported energy should remain a year we explain, even when some of its causes sit outside the machines themselves.

Current focus

I am concentrating on the commitments a growing wind portfolio can actually carry through a transition: funded service obligations, realistic energy periods and decisions whose remaining uncertainty stays visible to the board.

Conversations I welcome

Selected governance and executive discussions about asset transitions, service promises and accountable growth, subject to my continuing executive directorship and relationship review.