Search Results

Camelot Energy Group is a technical & strategic advisor to owners and investors in clean energy & energy storage projects, programs & infrastructure. We specialise in Solar, Energy Storage, Consulting, Engineering, Batteries, Due Diligence, Energy Access, Strategy, Owner’s Engineering & Advisory. OUR SERVICES At Camelot Energy Group, our services are best defined by our clients’ needs and we approach each engagement by listening to our clients and providing a bespoke solution. With that in mind, our services generally align with the following major activities. If your needs don’t perfectly align with one of these, no worries. These are only general guidelines and you can always contact us. Owner’s Engineering Technical Due Diligence Strategic Advisory 01. OWNER'S ENGINEERING (OE) Today’s clean energy asset owner face a rapidly evolving technology landscape, complex technical agreements, supply chain constraints, quality control issues, and schedule risks. At Camelot, we aim to address these challenges and help our clients build more clean energy projects, secure in the knowledge that a team of experts is in their corner ensuring their projects get negotiated, designed, built, and operated to the best possible standards. Our OE clients often ask for our help with: Negotiating supply, EPC, O&M, and other major project agreements Performing technical due diligence on technology and design options Design reviews Project management Commissioning and testing support Field inspections Reporting for financiers and investors Troubleshooting performance challenges Asset management support If you would like to talk to us about your OE needs, please contact us. We look forward to meeting you and learning about your project. 02. TECHNICAL DUE DILIGENCE The market for clean energy transactions is active and growing and projects and portfolios are bought and sold almost daily. Making the choice to invest in a portfolio of greenfield or operating assets, development platform, or new technology can present a great opportunity for savvy investors but there are risks as well. As these bids become more competitive, investors need actionable technical feedback on real-world risks so they can make informed decisions. At Camelot, we have a deep understanding of the M&A process and our team has provided actionable due diligence on everything from energy storage development platforms to large utility scale solar plants and portfolios of C&I projects. Our team evaluates key areas of potential acquisitions, including: Major agreements (EPC, O&M, interconnection, offtake, and supply) Financial models Major technologies Key team members and contractors Energy models Project designs and methods Installation quality Factory QA programs Independent Engineer (IE) reports Camelot and our team members have supported the financing of over $8bn in clean energy assets for private equity, debt, and tax equity financiers, from regional banks to some of the largest financiers in the world. If you think you may need help with technical due diligence on a project, platform, or other investment opportunity, please contact us . If you already have financing and want to make sure your project is well-executed, our Owner’s Engineering services are tailored to provide that peace of mind. OE Technical Due Diligence 03. STRATEGIC ADVISORY SERVICES Many of the world’s most successful investors have identified the clean energy space as ripe for investment and are seeking to successfully enter the market or expand their position to take advantage of the global growth trends. The opportunity is vast but the competition is fierce and wasting valuable time and resources on a bad deal can set you back considerably. Whether the need is to bring your team up to speed on the latest solar and energy storage markets, technologies, and trends or to get help identifying and validating potential M&A targets, our team’s broad industry knowledge, deep relationships, and expertise can help save precious time and avoid the pitfalls of a poor investment choice. Our team provides strategic guidance related to: Leadership team briefings on solar and energy storage market and technology trends Extended trainings and boot camps to get your team up to speed quickly Support for impact investing and energy access Target identification and due diligence Technology roadmap reviews On-call expertise If your team needs help evaluating new market opportunities, please contact us . If you are ready to consider investment in projects or portfolios, you may find our technical due diligence services helpful. STRATEGIC ADVISORY SERVICES

Camelot Energy Group is a technical & strategic advisor to owners and investors in clean energy & energy storage projects, programs & infrastructure. We specialise in Solar, Energy Storage, Consulting, Engineering, Batteries, Due Diligence, Energy Access, Strategy, Owner’s Engineering & Advisory. FEATURED PROJECTS Sectors We Serve Camelot Energy Group specializes in the clean energy sector, particularly focusing on these key areas: Solar Energy Storage Clean Energy Programs Energy Access Solar Energy Storage Clean Energy Programs Energy Access 01. SOLAR Enough solar energy falls on the surface of the earth in one hour to supply all of the energy needs of the global population for a year. However, when it comes to capturing and using that energy, the devil is, as they say, in the details. At Camelot Energy Group, we specialize in those details and our team members have supported the financing and construction of over 7GW of solar PV projects, including: Managing quality assurance for portfolios of distributed solar projects and performing hundreds of hands-on field inspections Performing Owner’s Engineering on utility scale projects from 500kW to 100’s of MW Providing technical due diligence and independent engineering (IE) services to support financing of portfolios, projects, and development platforms Supporting and evaluating state clean energy programs to support solar PV and related technologies Developed and delivered numerous trainings on relevant codes, standards, and best practices Our team members have supported many different public and private clients building and investing in solar technologies. See our Services page or contact us to learn more. 02. ENERGY STORAGE Scaling adoption of clean energy technologies will require a range of enabling technologies but none is more critical than the ability to safely and cost-effectively store and manage electricity. Energy storage technologies, from lithium-ion batteries to pumped hydro facilities, are key to managing the grid of tomorrow and the team at Camelot Energy Group has unique expertise and insights into the energy storage industry. From island microgrids to large utility-scale grid support applications, our team members have supported the energy storage transition for nearly two decades and bring core expertise in: Ensured asset owners receive the best possible technologies, designs, and installations during typical Owners Engineering engagements Evaluating new technologies and suppliers through our Strategic Advisory services Performing Technical due diligence and independent engineering on energy storage (including those with colocated solar) facilities and portfolios Developing and delivering trainings to support government entities and clean energy programs Provided key insights on developing codes and standards via our recent publications, including our founder’s recent book , published with the International Code Council and International Association of Electrical Inspectors. Our team members have supported dozens of energy storage projects, including over 4GWh projects. Please contact us if you would like to know more. SOLAR ENERGY STORAGE 03. CLEAN ENERGY PROGRAMS Clean energy programs often provide valuable incentives and technical support that have been key to driving adoption of new technologies. Though solar PV is much more cost-effective than it was even a few years ago, these programs continue to play a vital role and Camelot Energy Group is pleased to support these efforts. Our team members have: Helped state incentive programs build and manage quality assurance programs, ensuring that public funds support high quality, safe, and effective installations through program design, technical design reviews, process improvement, and implementation of over 4,000 hands-on field inspections. Evaluated public and utility-run incentive programs to determine cost-effectiveness, participant satisfaction, attributable energy benefits, and support filings with relevant regulatory bodies. Supported utilities during Integrated Resource Plan processes by analyzing technical, economic, and market potential for solar , energy storage, and other clean energy technologies. Our team members have worked with programs at the federal level and in over a dozen states. If you manage clean energy programs and need support running, evaluating, or expanding such a program please contact us. CLEAN ENERGY PROGRAMS 04. ENERGY ACCESS Globally, more than 750 million people (twice the population of the United States) lack access to electricity and some 2.6 billion people lack access to clean cooking fuels. At Camelot, we believe that a transition to a clean energy future must include energy access for all and we are glad to support these efforts through: Ensuring high quality and safety standards are maintained through Owner’s Engineering Helping impact investors support good projects and technologies with Technical Due Diligence and Strategic Advisory services Providing technical support and expertise to Clean Energy Programs The global impact investment market is a growing and powerful tool for implementing positive change in energy access. If you need help on this important topic, we would like to hear from you. Please contact us. ENERGY ACCESS

< Back Aug 23, 2024 Solar Availability Series Part 2: Measurements and Metrics Welcome back for Part 2 of Camelot’s series on solar availability, which is an appropriately hot topic as the industry continues to mature. If you’re just joining us for the series, Part 1 can be found here , and it includes some background on the current state of industry assumptions. Today we’ll cover the not-so-simple task of calculating and reporting downtime, along with some implications. Subsequent parts will describe ways of maximizing availabilities and Camelot’s official stance as an IE. Thank you for joining us! Introduction As expressed in Part 1 , availability is a way of quantifying lost generation potential due to outages; it measures whether a component or system is operating when it ought to be. An availability of 100% at any given time means everything is operating when it should, whereas an availability of 0% means the entire component or system is offline. The plot below illustrates a case where the entire site stopped producing power and was restored the following day. There will be more on this figure later. SCADA Data Collected at a Utility-Scale Solar Project Over Two Summer Days To better summarize the operations at a project based on high-resolution data collected at a site, production and availability data are typically aggregated and reported into monthly operating reports (MORs) which are shared with key stakeholders on a project. Monthly numbers are also aggregated into quarterly and annual reports. Because there is typically some seasonal variation in downtime, most folks will refer to annual availability numbers when benchmarking against expectations, and so when we talk about availability assumptions, we are referring to annual averages . A Deeper Dive Into Metrics The simplest but less useful measure of availability is time-based. It’s calculated as Uptime/(Uptime+Downtime) , so it only considers the time it takes to bring the system back online over the period. However, the most useful measure of availability in most contexts is energy-based . It uses an estimate of the energy lost during the period, and is calculated as Actual Production/(Actual Production+Lost Production) . We care more about lost production than anything; when building out a financial model, we multiply pre-downtime production by the assumed availability to arrive at post-downtime production, so we want to use energy-based availability if possible. This is often why, despite PVSYST’s ability to model downtime, the loss factor is most commonly applied outside of PVSYST; the software interprets the loss as time-based and will apply random downtime throughout the modeled year, resulting in an unintended energy-based loss. Time-based availabilities are not well suited for financial modeling, and we recommend time-based metrics only be used if they are defined and used in O&M contracts, as we’ll touch on below. How are uptime, downtime, actual production, and lost production determined? Uptime and downtime are relatively easily defined on a site-level. SCADA systems will typically flag periods when the site or major components are down, and the duration of these events will sum to be the downtime for the site. In cases when a portion of the site is offline, uptime is often weighted by the portion of the affected site (ideally on a production-potential basis). Actual production comes directly from the power meter, typically at the point of interconnect (POI). Calculating lost production usually involves several steps which are all built into the software used to log and report operational data: Determine “expected production” for each timestep based on the energy model for the site and the existing, measured site conditions (eg irradiance). The model should be validated as an accurate representation of the relationship between measured inputs and production. Referring to the plot above, expected production is the red line, which is based primarily on the plane-of-array irradiance (green line). Calculate the energy lost for each timestep, which is represented by the “Δ” in the plot above. Sum energy lost at each timestep across the entire reporting period. The same calculations hold for any reporting period. To calculate an annual availability number based on monthly data, you can sum the monthly time or production values before doing the same math, or take an energy-weighted average of the monthly availability numbers. What about data gaps or QC? Unfortunately, we see data concerns very often at operating sites, and garbage in equals garbage out. Some meters and sensors will have redundancy onsite in case one fails, but if we run into data concerns due to whatever issues arise, all may not be lost. Even in a system-wide SCADA outage or memory failure, some form of data are always being collected or modeled onsite, and inferences can be made. As a couple examples: If an inverter power meter at a site with 5 central inverters starts to fail, but the inverter should still be online, an operator can verify the inverter’s availability using the POI (revenue) meter. The total power at the POI meter minus the power from the other inverters should roughly equal the power from the fifth inverter (“roughly” because of electrical losses and measurement uncertainties, which can generally be determined from operational data anyways). Even if the entire site goes offline for a period of time and no actual measured data is available, besides the power flowing to the grid at the POI, high-resolution meteorological satellite data can be used. Operators can observe the relationship between the solar resource and production during a fully-operational period to fill in the gaps and define expected production. Admittedly, many O&M providers will not go to the effort to fill in data gaps when they occur, which can lead to missing or inaccurate data. This, in turn, can lead to an inaccurate understanding of overall system performance, which in some cases can even impact a project’s valuation: availability is a key factor when reforecasting a project’s future production, and we have seen cases where missing data makes a significant difference in the uncertainty (leading to lower P99s). This is where Technical Advisors such as Camelot Energy Group can help ensure you are working with the most accurate data you can. Not only can availability be calculated based on a fundamentally different basis (time vs energy), but we need to be careful to scrutinize what is included in the definition as well. Until now, we’ve focused on System Availability, but you might find other metrics floating around and serving other purposes. A few common terms and measures are: System Availability - Captures all quantifiable downtime over the entire site for the entire period, with no carveouts. The following is a list of possible synonyms, noting that the definition of every availability metric should be scrutinized because they can be inconsistent: Plant Availability Project Availability Operational Availability Total Availability Overall System Availability (OSA) An inverter fire which caused system-wide availabilities to drop for a significant period of time Component Availability – Captures only the availability of an individual component over a given time. These commonly include inverter availability or module availability , but can be broken into any components, including trackers. Sometimes referred to as Manufacturer Availability . Contractual Availability – Sometimes also referred to as Guaranteed Availability, this metric is the most commonly-confused one of them all. It should be clearly defined in an O&M agreement, and the downtime it includes can vary. The denominator in the calculation is often more complicated than simple “total time” or “total production” during the period, and both parts of the equation can include carveouts for periods which are often deemed outside of the operator’s control. This is the most commonly-reported time-based availability, but we are seeing an increase in contracts which define Contractual Availability on an energy basis. This incentivizes operators to perform maintenance at more optimal (lower resource) times. Balance of System (BOS) Availability – Includes the availability of all components other than the modules and inverters, such as wiring, mounting structures, and monitoring equipment. Sometimes also termed Balance of Plant (BOP) Availability, but as always, the definitions must be scrutinized. Grid Availability – Captures downtime when the grid is not available to accept power generated by the project. This is the most common carveout for contractual availabilities, as it is almost always outside the control of the operator. We hope this moderately deep dive into solar availabilities helps to put the numbers into perspective and emphasize the importance of understanding what metrics you are looking at when evaluating a project’s uptime. We can always go deeper into the topic, and we’d be happy to support with any questions you may have. The next article in this series will cover a number of ways of maximizing availability and improving your metrics. In the meantime, for questions and more details about Camelot Energy Group and our distinct attitude towards these issues, please reach out at info@camelotenergygroup.com . About Camelot Energy Group is a technical and strategic advisor to owners and investors in clean energy and energy storage projects, programs, and infrastructure. Guided by our core values of courage, empathy, integrity, and service we seek to support the energy needs of a just, sustainable, and equitable future. Our team has experience in supporting 7+GW of solar PV and 10+ GWh of energy storage and offers expertise in technology, codes and standards, engineering, public programs, project finance, installation methods, quality assurance, safety, contract negotiation, and related topics. Our services are tailored to a providing a different kind of consulting experience that emphasizes the humanity of our clients and team members, resulting in a high quality bespoke service, delivered with focus, attention, and purpose. Key services include: -Technical due diligence of projects and technologies -Owner’s representative and engineer support -Strategic planning -Training and coaching -Codes and standards consulting -Contract negotiation and support Back

Camelot Energy Group is a technical & strategic advisor to owners and investors in clean energy & energy storage projects, programs & infrastructure. We specialise in Solar, Energy Storage, Consulting, Engineering, Batteries, Due Diligence, Energy Access, Strategy, Owner’s Engineering & Advisory. Bespoke technical and strategic advisory for a better world About Us Our mission is to power a just, equitable, and sustainable society with clean energy . Our team of industry experts supports asset owners, investors, public agencies, and others through owner’s engineering, technical due diligence, and strategic advisory services. LEARN MORE WHO WE ARE OUR SERVICES LATEST ARTICLES CAMELOT PHOTO GALLERY

< Back Energy Storage Analyst Apply Now Tolland, MA, USA Job Type Full Time Workspace Remote About the Role Requirements About the Company Camelot, founded in 2022, is a new technical and strategic advisory firm supporting asset owners and investors in the clean energy space. Our clients build, own, and operate solar and energy storage projects and we help them by providing technical due diligence, owner’s engineering, strategic advisory, and other bespoke support. Our core values of courage, empathy, integrity, and service are at the heart of our business and support our mission of accelerating the pace of clean energy adoption to build a just and sustainable society. Camelot’s founder, Shawn Shaw, is a 20+ year veteran of the solar and energy storage industry, with experience ranging from supporting state incentive programs to supporting some of the largest banks and financiers on their most challenging project finance transactions. Shawn has built, trained, and nurtured consulting teams throughout his career and founded Camelot to be a human-centric consultancy that values trust, flexibility, and mentorship. Shawn is supported by a robust team of industry leaders and mentors who all have 10+ years of detailed experience in the clean energy sector, from development through construction and asset management. Our leadership team boasts a collective 30 GWh of energy storage experience with a wide range of technologies and markets prior to joining Camelot. The Camelot team has over 130 years of combined experience in the clean energy sector and has made an outsized impact on the industry for a group of our size. We have directly supported with over 30 GWh of energy storage projects (both standalone and hybrid), performed M&A due diligence on over 8 GW of assets, and have seen our Independent Engineering work accepted by several US-based financial institutions. Camelot aims to continue this growth trajectory while retaining the nimble nature of the team. Apply Now

< Back Juan Escobar Project Engineer Juan is a Project Engineer with over 5 years of experience in PV system design, engineering, and construction. Juan has worked on all aspects of design, installation, and commissioning of PV projects at the residential, commercial, and utility scales and manages a variety of owner’s engineering projects at Camelot. Juan also supports technical due diligence and has completed numerous site visits, design reviews, contract reviews, and related technical work. Juan holds a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Nevada. juan.escobar@camelotenergygroup.com

< Back Sep 11, 2024 Solar Availability Series Part 4: Camelot’s Balanced Approach Welcome back for Part 4 of Camelot’s series on solar availability. If you’re just joining us for the series, here are some links to parts 1 , 2 , and 3 . We’ve set the groundwork with a summary of the ongoing validation efforts from IEs, and the resulting changes the industry is making to their assumptions. We’ll revisit their reasoning here. We’ve also described how availabilities are calculated and reported, and touched on ways of maximizing availability by minimizing downtime. If you’ve followed along with the last few parts and you’ve been waiting for our own stance as an Independent Engineer (IE), look no further! Thank you for joining us. Re-Setting the Scene Until somewhat recently, the utility-scale solar industry didn’t have the kind of established history needed to accurately predict or validate what long-term average availabilities will be at newly-proposed projects. Engineering judgement said that a relatively simple solar project would see the equivalent of about 3-5 days of total site outages per year, leading to expected availabilities of about 98.5% to 99.2%. For modeling simplicity, most everyone assumed a relatively consistent availability throughout a project’s lifetime. However, as projects became operational, the industry started to question itself. Especially early in new projects’ operational lives, downtime was high and availabilities were lower than expected due to teething issues. Even after the initial startup period, many folks started seeing trends with their average availability levels below what they had hoped. Over the last year we have started to see the beginnings of some robust data-backed approaches to redefining availability assumptions, aided by all the new operating data which is available to us. There have been three IEs who have recently updated their assumptions based on aggregated data from the projects they supported. ICF led the charge with its performance paper published by kWh Analytics in 2023. DNV and Natural Power followed suit with their own methodology updates in early 2024. Others with access to the data have weighed in as well, from NREL to kWh Analytics. Here, we focus in on the results of the IE validations, each of which took slightly different approaches and used different data sets. The table below summarizes the projects which went into the IEs’ comparisons, and some key comments from their results. We’d like to highlight a few key findings from this comparison: Every IE relied on data from monthly operating reports produced by the operators, which are rarely independently calculated or verified. As described in part 2 of this series, there is no single, standard way that availabilities are defined or reported across the industry. The conclusions from these studies should be interpreted carefully, especially because the data QC processes have not been explicitly described. DNV’s analysis used more data and resulted in recommendations which are more clearly tailored to the sites. ICF found that fixed tilt systems showed lower availabilities than tracker systems while DNV found the opposite. Despite every IE noting lower availabilities early in a project’s life, only DNV adjusted their recommendation to treat the first year differently from other years. No IE has taken a stance on availability changes later in a project’s life yet. Here is a summary of the IE’s post-validation default availability recommendations. As you can see, only DNV makes a distinction between different kinds of projects at this time, though every IE noted that they are open to changing their assumptions based on project-specific data such as operator or technology history. In practice, however, IEs are often reluctant to deviate from their standard assumptions, as this requires going out on a proverbial limb. While that conservatism is understandable, it may be producing unintended consequences. For instance, if an IE will not give “credit” for more robust technology choices or operating strategies, then owners have little incentive to consider any options but those that can be considered “bankable” at the lowest possible cost. This approach penalizes owners for considering better than baseline equipment, spending more on O&M, or otherwise looking for creative solutions to improve availability. The need for more data was a theme repeated by each company, and this will likely ring true for as long as we do this kind of work. Our availability assumptions will need to be updated regularly, just like we update our approaches to Energy Yield Analyses. Camelot’s Recommendations The Camelot team is compiling the data needed to supplement these studies and validate our conclusions, and we welcome the opportunity to work with industry partners on this effort. In the meantime, we base our own recommendations off the meta-study described above and in Part 1. Without further ado, here is our own take on availability projections: Until we have more information, we should not be differentiating between different mounting types . ICF’s and DNV’s observations contradicted each other. It’s likely other factors influenced the analyses, especially the sample sizes and quality of the input data. The factors which can impact downtime should be studied further, which means collecting more data, ensuring its accuracy, and capturing all potentially-relevant project details. In addition to mounting types, the difference between inverter technologies must be studied further as one of the primary sources of downtime observed at operating sites. For instance, the higher availability noted by DNV on smaller fixed-tilt sites than larger fixed-tilt sites may indicate a reliability advantage for string inverters over relatively small sites with central inverters. This would align with our general experience with operating sites but the data to positively confirm this is not yet available in sufficient quantity. The major sources of downtime should be studied and modeled separately . Using an overall system availability as a metric can muddy the waters significantly, especially when trying to tease out the impact of different design decisions on future performance. When performing energy yield analyses for wind energy projects, some IEs will include assumptions for balance of plant availability, grid availability, and turbine availability separately. Not only can this improve our validations (data allowing), but it will improve the way we assess technology tradeoffs at the design stage. Swapping out a more robust system for a less-robust one should impact only the downtime assumption for that system. Camelot recommends the industry work towards a bottom-up availability model based on historical failure/downtime data at the module, tracker, inverter, MV, HV, and BOS levels. These levels correspond with likely failure points within the system and provide a lowest common denominator that can be adjusted during project design to optimize expected availability. Ensuring this approach has buy-in from IEs will provide a financial incentive to specify better equipment and design better sites. Year-1 availability should be modeled separately from later years due to initial startup issues observed in each validation. Nearly all financial models are already set up to account for annually-varying losses, so adjusting our assumptions based on the clear signals we see from the data appears to be a no brainer. The industry should start modeling a ramp-down in availability later in projects’ life, as DNV may have alluded to, because component failure rates impact availability trends. Without more data, it is difficult to say the magnitude of the decreases because of the other factors at play. However, based on our experience modeling availability at other infrastructure projects, Camelot considers it reasonable to model availability as a ramp-down as a project nears the end of its design life. The “bathtub curve” shown below is an Engineering concept which supports this idea. It shows how infant mortality failures likely contributed to the observed availabilities in the first 6-12 months of operation, and highlights the further need for more operational data as projects age. This is applicable to individual components in many physical systems. Aggregated across an entire system and accounting for typical replacements and maintenance, one might expect to see a flatter availability curve, but with some consideration for early- and late-stage failures. We have seen this already with 10-15 year old PV sites, where owners struggle to obtain compatible replacement equipment that can be “dropped in” to replace original equipment onsite. As technology continues evolving quickly, we can expect new module types, inverter technologies, sensing devices, and code requirements to all play a role in the maintainability of PV sites in the late stages of their useful life. Camelot’s Balanced Approach The summary below provides a graphical representation of each IE’s default availability recommendations over time, and includes Camelot’s own recommended defaults (when no other project-specific information is available). We note the following: Camelot’s approach accounts for the size impacts observed by DNV, which appears to be a strong signal in the data, but does not differentiate between technologies until more information is made available supporting the distinction. Much like DNV, Camelot’s recommended availability starts slightly lower in year 1 before reaching steady operations, as is supported by all studies. We recommend modeling availability declines after year 20 based on several factors, including the bathtub curve concept described above, the typical useful life for major components, and our expectation that the impacts of mid-life failures will likely offset by the efficiencies gained from experience during operations. While we see this assumption as a necessary recognition of late-stage wear-out failures, it’s worth noting that its impacts on a financial model are muted by the time value of money. On average, Camelot’s assumptions are less pessimistic than ICF, and strike a balance between the assumptions reported by Natural Power and DNV. Camelot will consider quantitative adjustment to our base availability assumptions for sponsor efforts that materially result in increased reliability, such as: Demonstrating better than average historical availability for project- specific equipment (e.g., inverters) through operational data (as described in item 3 above) Adding incentives to O&M Agreements for increased availability, beyond simply guaranteed levels Purchasing extra spare parts for more vulnerable system components likely to need frequent replacing Investing in predictive analytics and above-market O&M services to reduce the frequency and severity of unplanned maintenance events While these recommendations may be Camelot’s “default” values, as an IE which cares heavily about the accuracy of our projections, we will always consider factors such as operator experience or the relative track record of the technologies deployed at each site. As the saying goes, “show us the data.” Before we close, it is important to underscore an important point. Recent reporting that indicates PV projects are falling short of expected availability is a call to action for all of us. It is a call to action for more data, better analysis, and a deeper understanding of what causes PV systems to underperform. It is, notably, not a call to action for unnuanced conservatism. Simply whacking a few points off availability is, in our view, insufficient to the task of ensuring a better-performing PV fleet and it creates blind spots. We hope our fellow IEs will join us in not simply erring on the side of conservatism but, rather, will continue to advance our knowledge of these issues and build better, and more nuanced models that reward innovation, investment, and effort. We hope you’ve found this series to be helpful, and we welcome the opportunity to partner with any of our readers who would be able to support with future efforts. Although this is the last of our solar availability series for now, we fully intend to revisit the topic in the future. For our storage-oriented audience, you can expect a similar discussion on availability assumptions for BESS technologies in upcoming articles. About Camelot Energy Group is a technical and strategic advisor to owners and investors in clean energy and energy storage projects, programs, and infrastructure. Guided by our core values of courage, empathy, integrity, and service we seek to support the energy needs of a just, sustainable, and equitable future. Our team has experience in supporting 7+GW of solar PV and 10+ GWh of energy storage and offers expertise in technology, codes and standards, engineering, public programs, project finance, installation methods, quality assurance, safety, contract negotiation, and related topics. Our services are tailored to a providing a different kind of consulting experience that emphasizes the humanity of our clients and team members, resulting in a high quality bespoke service, delivered with focus, attention, and purpose. Key services include: -Technical due diligence of projects and technologies -Owner’s representative and engineer support -Strategic planning -Training and coaching -Codes and standards consulting -Contract negotiation and support. Back

< Back Feb 13, 2025 Navigating NERC's New 20MW+ Compliance Requirements: What You Need to Know Big changes are coming for renewable energy projects in North America. Starting in May 2025, NERC will require all inverter-based resources (IBRs) with an aggregate nameplate capacity of 20 MVA or more—connected at 60 kV or higher—to register as a Generator Owner (GO) and/or Generator Operator (GOP). If your solar, wind, battery storage, or fuel cell project falls into this category, compliance is no longer optional—it’s mandatory. 1. Understanding the New Requirements Historically, NERC registration was only required for facilities above 75 MVA and 100 kV, but these new thresholds mean that many mid-sized energy projects will now be subject to NERC oversight for the first time. The goal? Enhancing grid reliability as more inverter-based resources connect to the bulk power system. 2. Key Steps for Compliance If your project meets the new criteria, here’s what you need to do: Assess Your Facilities – Determine if your current or planned projects exceed the 20 MVA and 60 kV thresholds. Begin the NERC Registration Process – Registering with NERC isn’t an overnight task. The process can take 6–12 months, depending on factors like documentation requirements, technical assessments, and coordination with regional reliability entities. Early registration helps avoid bottlenecks and ensures compliance well ahead of the May 2026 enforcement deadline. Develop a Compliance Plan – This includes: Meeting NERC Reliability Standards , such as PRC-024 (Generator Frequency and Voltage Protection) to ensure proper coordination with the grid. Updating operational procedures , like implementing real-time monitoring systems to log and report grid disturbances. Training personnel on cyber and physical security best practices to align with CIP (Critical Infrastructure Protection) requirements. Conducting regular audits to ensure ongoing compliance with evolving regulations. Engage with Experts – Compliance can be complex, and mistakes can be costly. Partnering with experienced professionals ensures a smoother transition. 3. How Camelot Energy Group Can Help At Camelot Energy Group, we can assist you with NERC registration and compliance support for energy storage and renewable energy projects. Whether you’re navigating the registration process for the first time or need a tailored strategy to meet NERC’s evolving reliability standards, our team of experts is here to help. From registration assistance to ongoing compliance support, we provide: End-to-end NERC compliance services tailored to your specific project Technical assessments to determine your compliance obligations Regulatory expertise to help you avoid penalties and operational risks With the May 2026 compliance deadline approaching, early action is critical. Don’t let regulatory hurdles slow down your project—reach out to Camelot Energy Group today to ensure you stay ahead of the curve. Contact us to discuss your NERC compliance strategy! Back

< Back Aaron King, PE Senior Project Engineer Aaron is a Senior Project Engineer at Camelot Energy Group and has over 10 years of experience in the solar and storage industry. Aaron works across Camelot’s Technical Advisory and Owner’s Engineering departments supporting clients on a wide variety of services. He has acted as a project manager and technical lead on different projects and portfolios at all different stages of development from M&A due diligence, design and permitting, construction monitoring, site inspections, testing & commission, and asset management. Aaron started his career designing commercial rooftop systems and solar canopies. Aaron has also worked as a technical PV consultant and owner's engineer with a range of different clients including utilities, property management companies, EPCs, municipalities, state governments, and large universities. Aaron is a licensed Professional Electrical Engineer (Power) in the state of Massachusetts and holds a M.S. in Energy Systems Engineering from Northeastern University and a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from Johns Hopkins University. aaron.king@camelotenergygroup.com

< Back Mar 10, 2025 The Critical Role of Constructability in Renewable Energy Projects Constructability refers to the overall ease and efficiency with which a project can be built. This directly influences both the speed of construction, and the cost required to complete the project. It encompasses various aspects of design, planning, procurement, and execution to ensure the project can be built effectively, safely, and within budget and timeline constraints. The Importance of Constructability in Solar and Battery Storage Projects When it comes to solar and battery storage projects, constructability should be considered as early as the site acquisition stage. Typically, during this phase, developers identify a potential land parcel and create a preliminary layout to assess site capacity, estimate annual energy production, and gauge interconnection feasibility using the limited information available. While this is a crucial first step, constructability concerns are often overlooked or insufficiently analyzed. This can lead to projects with critical constructability challenges advancing through the development process—resulting in wasted time and money on projects with a low likelihood of successful execution. The Camelot Energy team has extensive experience in development, engineering, procurement, and construction, allowing us to help owners and developers identify and address constructability concerns early in a project’s lifecycle. By doing so, we help mitigate late-stage issues, ensuring smoother project execution. This article is the first in a series on "Constructability," where the Camelot team will highlight common challenges and showcase solutions that enable seamless project development and construction. The Ups and Downs of Topography in Renewable Energy Projects One of the most common constructability issues we encounter during the development and construction phases is inadequate attention to topography . The terrain of a project site significantly impacts design feasibility, energy production estimates, and overall constructability. Why Topography Matters Most preliminary project layouts are created using publicly available data, which typically provides only 5’ or 10’ contour intervals. While this offers a rough idea of site conditions, it lacks the precision needed to fully de-risk a project. This limitation is particularly problematic for sites with complex terrain, dense forestation, or proximity to floodplains. For such projects, hiring a professional survey company to conduct a detailed topographic survey (with 2’ contour intervals or finer) is essential. This data enables developers and engineers to validate site conditions accurately and plan accordingly. Using Topography Data in Project Design and Development Once a detailed topographic survey is completed, the preliminary layout—including solar arrays, battery storage units, access roads, fencing, and equipment pads—should be incorporated into computer-aided design (CAD) software . By integrating this data into the design, engineers can assess site suitability and proactively address constructability challenges. At this stage, a slope analysis should be conducted to identify areas of concern. This analysis requires input from multiple disciplines, including civil, structural, and electrical engineers, construction professionals, and racking vendors . Collaboration ensures that all aspects of the project are evaluated, and risks are mitigated early. Key Topography Considerations for Constructability Civil Design Grading requirements to meet design standards Stormwater management and hydrology considerations Access road construction feasibility Equipment pad locations and elevation planning Structural Design Vendor-specific racking slope tolerances Structural calculations for stability and safety Accommodation of varying site elevations Electrical Design Trenching and underground conductor runs Placement of medium-voltage poles and guy wires for overhead lines Routing and protection of underground cables Construction Considerations Water management strategies during construction Temporary erosion control measures Site layout for construction staging areas Placement of office trailers and parking zones Operations & Maintenance (O&M) Planning Long-term vegetation management strategies Ongoing erosion control measures Why Early Topographic Analysis is Essential Topography sets the foundation for every aspect of a renewable energy project—it is the building block of successful development and project design. Identifying and addressing topographic challenges early minimizes risks, helps maintain budget and schedule discipline, and ensures that project goals are met. By taking a proactive approach, developers can avoid costly redesigns, permitting delays, and unexpected construction obstacles. Looking Ahead This article is just the beginning of our series on constructability. In upcoming articles, we will dive deeper into other critical factors affecting constructability, including geotechnical challenges, interconnection hurdles, and procurement risks. Stay tuned for more constructability insights from the Camelot Energy Group! Back

< Back Shawn Shaw, PE Founder, CEO Shawn Shaw is the founder and CEO of Camelot Energy Group and has over 21 years of experience in the renewable energy and energy storage industry. During that time, Shawn has supported public programs in more than 10 states and acted as technical advisor to many of the largest banks and financiers in the world, providing technical due diligence, owner’s engineering, and independent engineering on well over 8 GW of solar PV and 5 GWh of energy storage projects in the US, Latin America, and Europe, ranging from design and construction of offgrid island power systems to acting as Independent Engineer for financing multiple 400MWh energy storage projects in complex US markets. Shawn has experience working with a wide variety of equipment suppliers, project developers, banks, financiers, government entities, and incentive program administrators. Shawn is a registered electrical engineer (Power Systems) in New York State and holds a B.S. in Applied Physics from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Recently authored Energy Storage Systems: Based on the IBC, IFC, IRC, and NEC in collaboration with the International Code Council. shawn.shaw@camelotenergygroup.com

< Back Feb 12, 2025 MA SMART Part 2: Key Financial Implications for Hybrid Systems Massachusetts continues to be a leader in state-level clean energy programs, and Camelot interacts with these programs daily through our work supporting developers and asset owners. Developers and other players take note: Through the Solar Massachusetts Renewable Target (SMART) Program and the Clean Peak Energy Standard, the state has introduced dynamic frameworks designed to accelerate renewable energy adoption while addressing grid reliability and peak demand challenges. We covered much of this in Part 1 of this series, in case you missed it. Here, in part 2 of the series on the Massachusetts programs, we dive more deeply into the key financial implications for hybrid systems. Revenue Streams for Hybrid Systems (Solar + Storage) Hybrid systems under the SMART Program can generate revenue through the following revenue streams: SMART Revenues (Tariff-Based Compensation Including Adders, Subtractors, & Incentives) Term: 20 Years (Solar Related) Description: Direct incentives from the SMART Program, calculated based on the SMART rate, which depends on system size, location, and configuration. 2. Clean Peak Energy Certificates (CPECs) Revenues Term: Up to 2050 Description: Revenue from CPECs, which are earned by charging storage systems with renewable energy and discharging that energy during peak demand periods and can be sold at market-determined prices. 3. Capacity Revenues Term: Project Life (Solar & BESS Related) Description: Capacity Market Payments for providing reliable power capacity to the grid, to be called upon by the ISO during potential scarcity events, ensuring the system's contribution to grid stability. 4. Frequency Regulation Term: Project Life (BESS Related) Description: Revenue from participating in frequency regulation markets, storage systems help maintain grid frequency by quickly responding to imbalances between electricity supply and demand. These four revenue streams must all be considered when developing projects, especially when considering BESS system size (both max power and duration) and configuration (AC vs DC coupled). Optimizing Project Returns for Hybrid Systems When developing projects in Massachusetts, it is important to understand the complex and overlapping nature of the various revenue streams available to a potential project. To optimize returns, various PV and BESS system sizes must be considered. Sizing the PV system: The PV system size is first restricted by the available land or roof space but also can be limited by the point of interconnection (POI) AC limit, dictated by the interconnection application process and system impact study. If the POI AC limit falls well below the possible PV DC system size, the project can be configured as a DC coupled system to allow the BESS to capture potential inverter clipping caused by the high DC:AC ratio. If there are minimal expected clipping losses, AC coupled hybrid systems are often more attractive due to the simplified system design and configuration. Another main consideration for PV system size is to optimize the SMART base compensation rate that is designed with significant step decreases as system size increases. Note that, under the new SMART straw proposal, all projects over 1,000 kW AC will require a collocated BESS system. Table 1: Estimated Based Compensation Rates as Published in DOER Straw Proposal Dated 7/29/24 Sizing the BESS System While sizing the PV system size is fairly straightforward and easy to optimize, the BESS system can be more complex as revenues from the SMART storage adder, CleanPeak, Capacity market, Frequency Regulation are all dynamic and depend on both the BESS system ouput power (kW) and the capacity (kWh). To illustrate how these revenue streams can range from project to project based on BESS system sizing, we modeled an example ground mounted, DC coupled project with a PV system size of 5.0 MW DC and a POI limit of 2.0 MW AC. We ran two scenarios with the first being a 1.0 MW / 2-hour BESS and the second with a 2.0 MW and / 4-hour BESS. The charts below compare the percentage of total project revenue over the first 20 years from each contributing factor, including SMART from PV, SMART from the storage adder, DC clip capture, CleanPeak and forward capacity. We have excluded the Frequency Regulation Revenue for these cases, as most Massachusetts projects we have modeled have had only minimal revenue contributions from providing these services. That said, we always recommend evaluating all of the possible revenue streams, as the final value stack can be quite location and system design specific. The comparison of the two scenarios shows the impact that the BESS sizing can have on project economics and highlights the need for custom project level analysis needed to consider the impact and intersectionality of the different revenue streams. This, along with accurate CAPEX and OPEX assumptions, are critical to finding the optimal BESS size and configuration for your project. As discussed in the first article, CPEC prices and certain components of the SMART compensation rate are expected to increased due to recent updates released by MA DOER as outlined in Part 1 of this series. Additionally, capacity revenues are expected to be higher for a 4-hour BESS compared to a 2-hour BESS, given the anticipated implementation of the Effective Load Carrying Capacity (ELCC) framework post-2030. With more aggressive thermal power plant retirements driving up capacity prices and increasing the demand for BESS deployments, longer-duration systems (4 hours or more) are expected to capture the majority of capacity value. Post SMART Program Revenue Opportunities for Hybrid Systems There are a couple of scenarios that developers consider when modeling the revenue opportunities post the SMART incentive period (i.e., after year 20) to maximize revenues from their assets: Solar Only Assuming No BESS Augmentation: The BESS portion of hybrid projects will generally reach its end of life at approximately 20 years, assuming the BESS is not augmented or repowered, but the PV portion may remain operating for another 15-20 years. As solar projects transition beyond the SMART Program’s contract term of 20 years, revenue opportunities remain robust for solar as their life extends an additional 15 to 20 years. Solar & BESS Assuming BESS Augmentation: As solar projects transition beyond the SMART Program’s incentives timeframe, revenue opportunities remain robust for hybrid projects as the solar system and BESS (via Augmentation) life extends to an additional 15 to 20 years. Here’s a table delving into the revenue opportunities for the scenarios mentioned above: Conclusions Looking forward, Massachusetts aims to expand and refine the SMART & Clean Peak Program to adapt to emerging technologies and evolving market conditions. By integrating solar energy with battery storage and enhancing equitable access, the program continues to serve as a model for other states aiming to transition to a clean energy future. For those considering solar, standalone storage, and/or hybrid projects in the state, the program offers a valuable opportunity to contribute to sustainability while enjoying financial benefits. If you're interested in assessing solar, energy storage, and/or hybrid projects in ISO-NE’s Programs, feel free to reach out to us at info@camelotenergygroup.com . About Camelot Energy Group is a technical and strategic advisor to owners and investors in clean energy and energy storage projects, programs, and infrastructure. Guided by our core values of courage, empathy, integrity, and service we seek to support the energy needs of a just, sustainable, and equitable future. Our team has experience in supporting 7+GW of solar PV and 10+ GWh of energy storage and offers expertise in technology, codes and standards, engineering, public programs, project finance, installation methods, quality assurance, safety, contract negotiation, and related topics. Our services are tailored to provide a different kind of consulting experience that emphasizes the humanity of our clients and team members, resulting in a high-quality bespoke service, delivered with focus, attention, and purpose. Key services include: -Technical due diligence of projects and technologies -Owner’s representative and engineer support -Strategic planning -Training and coaching -Codes and standards consulting -Contract negotiation and support. Back