Frequently asked questions

Not at all. We become your dedicated energy experts and work hand-in-hand with your team to build energy intelligence across the organisation. You stay focused on your business. We lead the energy work for you.

Most clients come to us with a specific project they need help with, while others are moving into bigger strategy work. Either way, we can support you at any stage of your journey.

No. We're an independent consultant. Our recommendations are driven purely by what's best for your individual sites and your portfolio.

We have two engagement types:

Fixed project: fixed scope, deliverables and fees agreed up front before any work begins. Usually best for individual projects or smaller programs.

Subscription: a monthly subscription over 12 to 24 months, for delivering larger programs of work.

We stand behind our work with two performance guarantees:

Transform Guarantee: we guarantee to develop an energy strategy that unlocks at least twice the energy savings of your investment in the program.

Perform Guarantee: we guarantee the outcomes of any project where we complete the design and modelling.

Most organisations treat electricity as a pure operating expense. Over a long ownership horizon this creates material, largely uncontrollable cost exposure driven by wholesale prices, network charges, and retail margins. Restructuring energy as precinct or portfolio infrastructure allows generation, storage, and network ownership to sit inside the asset base. This shifts the organisation from passive price-taker to active value capturer and can materially improve long-term asset returns.

Electricity is not a single cost. It comprises several distinct layers: wholesale energy, network (transmission and distribution) charges, retail margin and operating costs, plus market and environmental charges. Under a traditional supply contract these layers are bundled and paid to external parties.

A coordinated strategy that owns generation, storage, and an embedded network can replace several of those layers with internally controlled value streams. The more layers that can be retained or optimised inside the portfolio, the greater the long-term economic advantage.

A Virtual Energy Strategy deploys on-site solar and battery storage, retains or establishes embedded network ownership, and actively matches surplus generation across multiple assets within a portfolio. It treats the sites as a single coordinated energy system rather than independent loads. This approach captures generation value, peak-demand reduction, retail margin retention, and portfolio-level wholesale optimisation simultaneously.

A Point strategy installs solar and battery systems at individual sites to optimise behind-the-meter performance at each location in isolation. It can deliver strong capital efficiency and faster payback, but it does not enable cross-site energy matching or portfolio-level wholesale optimisation. Value is therefore limited to the individual site rather than the broader portfolio.

An off-site strategy involves owning or contracting renewable generation located away from the consuming assets and matching the energy contractually. It can improve renewable credentials and reduce exposure to wholesale price volatility. However, it typically leaves on-site network and demand charges unchanged and does not capture the operational optimisation or retail-margin layers available through on-site and embedded-network approaches.

When an organisation owns the embedded network it purchases energy at the gate meter and on-sells (or allocates) it internally. This retains the retail margin, improves control over tariffs and metering, and enables generation and storage to be optimised against the full portfolio load rather than against a single site. In many cases this structural decision is one of the largest drivers of difference between strategies.

When generation at one site exceeds local demand, the surplus can be contractually or virtually allocated to other loads within the same ownership group. This improves the effective value of exported energy compared with standard feed-in tariffs and creates a portfolio-wide wholesale hedge. It is one of the key differentiators of a coordinated Virtual strategy versus pure behind-the-meter solutions.

Key metrics over a multi-decade horizon typically include:

• Reduction in total energy cost versus business-as-usual
• Net Present Value (NPV) at an appropriate discount rate
• Internal Rate of Return (IRR)
• Simple payback
• Cumulative cash generation

Higher IRR can favour lower-capital options, while higher NPV and total cash generation often favour strategies that capture more of the value stack over the full ownership period. The preferred metric depends on capital constraints and ownership intent.

Not necessarily. Scaling systems to achieve near-100% energy independence or removing commercial structures (such as tenant energy sales) can improve technical and sustainability metrics but often increases capital intensity and reduces returns. A balanced configuration that captures the majority of the controllable value stack while maintaining capital efficiency frequently produces superior financial results.

The highest-impact risks are usually:

• Network connection capacity, export limits, and possible augmentation costs
• Availability and suitability of land for ground-mounted systems
• Regulatory changes affecting embedded networks, tariffs, or feed-in arrangements
• Delivery complexity of multi-site coordination and partnering models

Technology risk is generally secondary to network, commercial-structure, and land risks. Early engagement with the network operator and locking in the commercial model before major capital commitment are critical de-risking steps.

A staged approach is recommended:

1. Confirm commercial structure and ownership model (embedded network, governance, partnering approach).
2. Engage the network operator and complete concept design to confirm capacity and constraints.
3. Procure delivery and operational partners under clear performance frameworks.
4. Construct and commission, activating portfolio matching once systems are live.

Capital should only be fully committed once network feasibility is confirmed. The commercial structure that underpins value capture needs to be locked in early.

A well-designed Virtual strategy typically delivers the highest behind-the-meter renewable penetration and the strongest portfolio-level matching capability while also producing the best long-term financial outcome. Sustainability performance can therefore reinforce, rather than compete with, commercial objectives when the strategy is structured correctly. Financial return remains the primary decision lens; sustainability benefits are a powerful co-benefit.