My contribution to a board
I would bring an engineering perspective on what an energy asset is being asked to deliver and how the proposed technology has been examined. That perspective could help a board distinguish a physical rating from a commercial obligation, a study result from operational evidence and a useful next investigation from a commitment to construct. I am accustomed to explaining such distinctions to colleagues who need to make decisions without becoming power-conversion specialists.
My experience includes executive presentations to Rovenkel's board, not service as a director. I would approach a first external seat with an expectation of induction and collective responsibility. I have not chaired an audit committee or held a non-executive investment-committee position. My prospective contribution would complement financial, operating and customer knowledge already present among the directors. It would not replace specialist assurance or give me authority to direct the company's engineers from the boardroom.
Judgement in practice
01A smaller power promise with a clearer duty
The storage proposal paired twenty megawatts with eighty megawatt-hours, while the stated year-ten usable AC-energy assumption was sixty-four megawatt-hours. I supported carrying a sixteen-megawatt four-hour reference duty into procurement evaluation alongside a larger-energy alternative. The board-level question was whether the business understood the obligation it intended to offer and the cost of changing it. The engineering calculation clarified that choice without determining the commercial answer by itself.
02Further investigation without an annual benefit in the plan
The wind-control trial produced different conclusions across its two selected direction sectors. I approved a bounded extension while declining to add a production gain to the annual portfolio plan. That required explaining why additional expenditure could be justified even though the first phase did not support a booked benefit. I would bring the same distinction to oversight: funding a question and recognising an operating outcome are separate decisions, each requiring its own evidence.
My first year on a board
I would begin by learning the company's financial position, asset portfolio, contractual commitments and governance arrangements. I would want to understand where a technology recommendation becomes a construction decision, who retains operating accountability and how the board receives evidence that changes the original proposal. Site visits and discussions with operational leadership would help me interpret the papers without creating a separate reporting channel around management.
I would then examine a small number of significant decisions in depth. For a development proposal, I would trace the service obligation through the engineering assumptions, the investment account and the next approval. For an operating asset, I would ask how observed performance is compared with the conditions used in the original case. I would avoid demanding that every project be presented in one technical format when the technologies and duties differ. The objective would be a usable account of the judgement required, not a larger pack of calculations.
My learning would include how financing conditions, liquidity and investor expectations constrain the apparent technical choices. A design that produces more useful energy may still be unattractive once its cost, timing and revenue conditions are understood. I would review how the board sees stopped work, delayed qualification and revised estimates, because those changes can reveal more about decision quality than a list of completed milestones. I would seek feedback from the chair on the usefulness of my questions and adjust my contribution to the collective discussion.
I would also learn how the board evaluates the people and capability required to deliver its technology plans. A sound equipment choice can still depend on scarce engineering skills, supplier support or operating knowledge that the business has not secured. I would ask how those dependencies are reflected in recruitment, succession and the development budget, while leaving individual staffing decisions with management. Where external advice is used, I would want to understand the question commissioned and the limits of the conclusion. That would help me distinguish a useful independent examination from a report whose authority is being extended beyond the work actually performed.
Conflicts and their management
I would review proposed appointments with my employer before entering substantive company discussions. The assessment would include competing development opportunities, shared suppliers, commercial counterparties and access to confidential technical information. Advisory or speaking work could also create a relevant relationship and would be disclosed. Where a conflict could not be managed appropriately, I would decline the engagement rather than assume that a narrow job description removed the underlying connection. The review would continue after appointment as both businesses changed.
My independence statement
I would require a company-specific review of my employment, supplier relationships, investment interests and any proposed advisory work before accepting a seat. Rovenkel's counterparties and development interests could create relevant connections even where the prospective company operates a different technology. I do not claim independence in advance of that review. I would disclose relevant relationships to the appointing company and agree the handling of conflicts, access to sensitive information and any recusal requirements before proceeding.
Committee contribution
Chair and member readiness| Capacity | Committees |
|---|
| Ready to join | Technology and innovation committee · Investment committee with a substantial energy-asset agenda |
|---|
Capacity and preferences
- Time available
- 22 days per year
- Current directorships
- 0
- Sectors
- Renewable generation and storage · Industrial energy services · Power-conversion technology
- Company type
- An investor-backed or family-owned energy or industrial business with a functioning board
- Company stage
- Evaluating substantial technology choices or expanding an established asset portfolio
The seat I am pursuing
I would consider a first non-executive appointment in an established energy or industrial business where technology choices are material to the strategy and the board wants an additional engineering perspective. I could propose twenty-two days annually, including preparation, committee work and site learning, subject to consent and the actual calendar. I would discuss expected demands during an acquisition, construction difficulty or operating incident before treating that number as adequate. I am not seeking an immediate committee chair role. The seat would need to provide enough access and induction for me to contribute beyond my specialist background while respecting management's responsibility for execution.
Board and committee exposure
Presented to the Board or a committee
Rovenkel Energy
Board discussions of technology development and qualification
January 2021–present
Presented storage duty, inverter qualification, solar-design comparison and staged wind-control investigation decisions as CTO; no director appointment.
Governance learning and readiness
IICA Independent Directors’ Databank: Not yet registered
I have not registered in the Indian independent-director databank. My present experience is European; any appointment in India would require separate consideration of the applicable eligibility, learning and company requirements. I make no claim of an exemption or completed assessment.
- Company-specific induction covering duties, financial position, asset obligations and investor expectations
- Learning the financial and risk account behind major technology and construction decisions
- Site familiarisation with operating leadership before relying on an executive presentation alone