Search Results

< Back Andrew Leslie Senior Project Engineer Andrew Leslie is a career Field Service Representative with over thirty years of customer service experience in the Power Utilities and Automotive sectors. As a member, lead-hand, or site supervisor of an installation and commissioning team, he was called upon regularly to provide support for the team’s EHS (Environment, Health & Safety) concerns. Project planning, coordination and execution are also areas of his expertise, along with civil construction of substations, duct banks and buried conduits required in Utility Hydro and EV Infrastructure projects. These projects typically included electrical and mechanical installation of switchgear, robots, and components, robotic programming, PLC coordination, and site support. As a Construction Supervisor, Lead-hand, and Team Member at Black and MacDonald, he primarily coordinated and executed Substation Maintenance and Construction projects for Toronto Hydro in the Downtown and Horseshoe substations, on Medium Voltage (5, 15, and 27.6 KV) installation and maintenance projects. His training in the Canadian Armed Forces has given him the ability to adapt to new challenges effectively and his experience as a Field Service Representative in the Power/Utilities and Automotive industries, Substation Construction and Maintenance, EV Infrastructure, BESS O&M, and HV Maintenance backs up his commitment to providing clients end-to-end Stellar Customer Service. andrew.leslie@camelotenergygroup.com

< Back Michelle Aguirre Project Manager Michelle Aguirre is a Project Manager with over 4 years of experience in managing engineering projects. Michelle has expertise in electrical safety, quality assurance, technical report writing, and project management. Michelle has supported with Technical Advisory, Owner’s Engineering, and Supply Chain services on commercial to utility-scale PV and BESS projects with construction monitoring, technology reviews, and managing the quality assurance and traceability of major equipment. Prior to joining Camelot, Michelle was a Product Safety Engineer at TUV SUD. Michelle is a registered Engineer-in-Training in the state of California and holds a B.S. in Environmental Engineering from the University of California-San Diego. She is actively pursuing the NABCEP PV Installation Professional certification. michelle.aguirre@camelotenergygroup.com

< Back Jacques Cantin, PE Senior Project Manager, PE Jacques Cantin is a Senior Project Manager at Camelot Energy Group with over 13 years of experience delivering renewable energy and energy storage projects. Based in Montreal, he has led utility-scale battery energy storage system (BESS) and wind projects across Canada and the United States, overseeing project development, systems integration, design, construction, and commissioning. Prior to joining Camelot, Jacques managed storage and renewable projects for a battery storage technology provider and a renewable energy developer and founded a technology start-up focused on wind turbine blade de-icing solutions. At Camelot, he manages advisory engagements for developers, asset owners, and investors, providing technical due diligence, market and economic analysis, and owner’s engineering support for solar, storage, and other clean energy assets. Jacques holds a Bachelor of Applied Science in Mechanical Engineering from Université Laval and an Executive MBA from Queen’s University. Jacques.Cantin@camelotenergygroup.com

Mar 10, 2025 Constructability Part 1 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

Oct 30, 2025 NFPA 855 (2026) Taylor Swift dropped her new album, but the NFPA dropped the 2026 edition of 855: Camelot is reviewing the standards and there will be a dedicated post about this in the coming weeks – stay tuned! Please reach out to us if you require guidance on the ensuring your systems are code compliant and you have the best resources to complete fire safety engineering General Scoping: The latest edition has reorganized things which reduce ambiguity and cross references that existed across chapters in prior editions General requirements have been moved into a single chapter; technology specific chapters with tailored rules which should create fewer conflicts and clearer applications during code reviews Large-Scale Fire Testing (LSFT): The latest edition puts a stronger emphasis on LSFT but creates an anchor to UL 9540A. The most significant single change is the introduction of full-scale burn testing with flammable gas ignition. In the short-term, this puts the 2026 NFPA 855 ahead of UL 9540A, as the 4 th edition does not provide a procedure for this gas ignition process. This is expected to be addressed in the upcoming 5 th edition of UL9540A, to be released in March, but in the meantime, specifics of new LSFT procedures are a bit of a gap in the new edition of NFPA 855. Conceptually, the new LSFT is considered an alternative unit-level test, adding to the typical number of UL 9540A tests that need to be reviewed as part of typical due diligence. Engineers, like Camelot, will now need to review cell, module, unit, and LSFT test reports to validate system design and code compliance but, overall, this added testing is expected to result in improved safety. Source: UL For larger, denser designs, the 2026 edition elevates LSFT to an expected component to demonstrate containment, adjacent to unit impacts and realistic configurations (multiple racks, aisle spacing, ceiling effects, heat flux, etc.) Source: Hithium It is important for engineers to budget for real estate when proposing dense BESS layouts with tight clustering. Camelot expects AHJs will ask for both UL 9540A and system-scale LSFT evidence in permitting packages Explosion control: While previous editions allowed owners to comply via either passive (e.g., deflagration panels) or active (e.g., gas detection and ventilation), the 2026 edition will now require manufacturers to use active ventilation measures complying with NFPA 69. Manufacturers may still use passive measures if desired but these, alone, will no longer be compliant with NFPA 855. The new standard also increases the requirements for documentation around explosion control and the rigor of hazard mitigation analyses (HMA). The new edition also provides more specific requirements for supplying backup power to explosion control systems, allowing them to remain operational when grid power is disconnected. Enhanced documentation requirements: The 2026 cycle clarifies HMA expectations (inputs, scenarios, outcomes) and pushes better correlation between detection technologies and mitigation strategies (e.g., clean agent vs water, deflagration prevention vs passive venting). This is a direct response to inconsistent submittals in prior cycles. Camelot expects AHJ to scrutinize HMAs and modeling assumptions, so it is important to be explicit about gas evolution triggers, alarm setpoints, failure modes, fan curves, agent hold times, ventilation rates, fail-safe logic, etc. Owners will need to be ready to work closely with suppliers to provide AHJs with more test data, modeling results, and similar technical information going forward. NFPA 855 also draws a distinction between Emergency Response Plans (ERPs) and Emergency Operations Plans (EOP). Much of this content was previously merged into a single document but going forward, ERPs will focus on firefighter and emergency personnel information, whilst the EOP will provide key information for the owner/operator. The result should be two more targeted and accessible documents replacing a single broad document, but developers will need to plan on refreshing previous templates and some additional time to coordinate separately on these key documents. Technology coverage has been expanded in the 2026 edition which intends to reduce overapplication of Li-specific requirements to chemistries with different risk profiles, like lead-acid, aqueous Nickel, etc. Operations and Maintenance: Since testing expectations have been made explicit, field-based modifications like augmentation may potentially invalidate test representativeness. It is expected that the AHJs will trigger re-evaluations to ensure everything is up to code The latest edition also states that the project owners schedule annual ERP reviews and training for first responders to maintain compliance. This has been the best practice for some time but jurisdictions adopting NFPA 855 will now have grounds to make this a requirement. It is also worth putting this new edition of NFPA 855 into a broader context, as things are moving fast on the ESS codes and standards front. Camelot is closely tracking several related codes and standards efforts, including: NFPA 800 (Battery Safety Code) is a new standard with far more breadth than previous codes, covering all aspects of battery safety from manufacturing and storage to operations and disposal. It goes beyond stationary ESS, as well. The code is still in its first draft, but the Technical Committee is actively working on updates. UL 9540A 5 th Edition: As noted above, the new edition of this critical testing standard will likely provide updated guidance to better address the LSFT requirements put forth in NFPA 855 (2026) and this should be released in March. Camelot’s CEO, Shawn Shaw, is working on an update to the 2022 Energy Storage Systems and the IBC, IFC, IRC, and NEC published by the International Code Council. Stay tuned for more updates and a final publication date soon. Raafe Khan, Shawn Shaw < Back Back

< Back Raafe Khan Head of Energy Storage and Emerging Markets Raafe is Camelot's Head of Energy Storage and Emerging Markets at Camelot Energy Group. He brings a great depth of knowledge across the energy storage project lifecycle having held tactical and leadership positions at TATA Power (public utility), Mortenson Construction (EPC), Sunnova Energy Corporation (finance + asset management), Pine Gate Renewables (project development), and Visteon Corporation (product development). His interdisciplinary approach has resulted in over 5 GW of operating projects (wind + solar + storage) and over 25 GWh (storage) across the United States. He is a recipient of several national and international awards, including being a Forbes Under 30 honoree in the field of energy. An ardent advocate for energy access and equity, he is an accredited lecturer for the Battery MBA program and devotes his time to educating stakeholders in the energy storage space about technical and commercial challenges from the cell to a fully functional container system. Raafe has a Bachelor's in Electrical & Electronics Engineering degree from Manipal University and a Master's in Energy Science, Technology & Public Policy from Carnegie Mellon University. raafe.khan@camelotenergygroup.com

Feb 4, 2026 Tired of BESS commissioning delays? Start the process earlier than you think Teams often treat the commissioning of battery energy storage systems (BESS) as a late-stage checkbox rather than a project-defining discipline. Projects can succeed or fail during commissioning. However, most commissioning failures stem from organizational, contractual, and procedural lapses rather than technical issues. While many engineers and project managers bring deep experience in solar and wind, you can’t apply the same approaches to energy storage. Energy storage systems are more complex — both technically and commercially — and require a higher degree of integration, training, and engineering discipline to commission a battery energy storage system successfully. A structured, phased commissioning plan brings every discipline together from the outset with clear tasks, ownership, dependencies in their sequential order, and minimizes surprises and delays. This approach not only safeguards project integrity and compliance but also establishes clear responsibilities, fosters ownership, collaboration, and accountability among project stakeholders. Ownership, transparency, and accountability are non-negotiable. Commissioning is not simply that final checkbox at the end of the project. Instead, effective commissioning begins at project initiation and continues as an ongoing process, overlapping with construction, through to acceptance testing. Risks from early decisions made in isolation are often overlooked. However, their impacts become evident later in the project — triggering delays and costly fixes precisely when the schedule can least absorb them. Commissioning problems often result from a lack of a cohesive, integrated plan that considers all stakeholders. While each contractor may have its own comprehensive Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, and Informed (RACI) matrix, minimizing commissioning risks requires a single, fully integrated RACI matrix that addresses all the project’s components and phases. Defining ownership, clear roles, responsibilities, accountabilities, and dependencies at the outset of the project ensures smooth handovers. EPCs, subcontractors, OEMs, owners, and other involved parties often identify scope gaps too late to avoid scheduling delays. These details, although small, are easily overlooked, yet can cause massive headaches and costs. A fully integrated commissioning may seem prohibitively long, detailed, and too complicated for practical use. However, the lack of a master plan often results in rework, confusion, back-and-forth, and ultimately, schedule delays and liquidated damages. Planning for the entire commissioning sequence from the beginning through to project final acceptance reduces surprises later in the project. A good rule of thumb is to plan for the worst and be pleasantly surprised at the end. From silos to signal: coordinating the whole commissioning team Facilitating communication across the entire team helps close gaps. While large calls with multiple parties may seem inefficient, so are commissioning delays! As painful as these calls may be, they remain a necessary investment of time to catch inconsistencies and miscommunication. Daily check-ins focused on commissioning and testing serve as essential touchpoints, breaking down silos, synchronizing activities, and clarifying accountability. At this stage, a third-party commissioning expert becomes invaluable. A seasoned facilitator knows which questions to ask, spots potential red flags long before they turn into schedule killers, and guides both live discussions and asynchronous communication to keep progress on track. Robust standards exist, but compliance doesn't always follow. A common misconception is that BESS is too new and lacks robust regulatory standards, especially for fire risk and safety compliance. In reality, the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and the National Electrical Code (NEC) have evolved in step with the industry, with meaningful updates such as UL9540A (5th edition), UL9540 (3rd edition), and new ESS-specific requirements in the upcoming 2026 NEC edition. Additionally, long-standing international standards, like IEC 62619 and the IEC 62933 Series, provide comprehensive safety and performance codes and standards that are well-established, vetted, and globally referenced for decades. The real issue with standards isn’t their existence — it lies in how seriously they are taken. It may be tempting to accelerate the design or testing process by selectively interpreting statutes and accepting the “minimum viable compliance” rather than delivering true industry best practices and high-quality adherence. This pressure often stems from the substantial financial incentives tied to the contractual completion milestones. When completion milestones trigger large contractor payments and give owners progress to report to investors, both sides feel the pull to “just get it done.” Under pressure, shortcuts can start to look appealing. Common shortcuts I’ve seen include incomplete test reports, missing serial numbers and calibration certificates, omitted verification steps, and insufficient photographic documentation. In the worst cases, critical equipment such as medium‑voltage transformers or battery modules — impacting system capacity — end up on the punch list. Once that happens, the finger-pointing begins, or worse, teams walk away assuming “someone else will deal with it.” Experienced contractors know the compliance standards. Shortcuts rarely result from ignorance — they come from gaps in structure, accountability, and oversight. A robust, well-designed commissioning plan is the strongest tool you have to minimize the opportunity for mistakes, both intentional and unintentional. Commissioning ultimately tests project leadership, and many projects stumble right at the final stages. Yours does not have to be one of them. Don’t let your project fall into these preventable pitfalls; develop a well-informed plan from the beginning. Lynn Appollis Laurent < Back Back

Oct 28, 2025 Smart 3.0 Is Here SMART 3.0 is here and here’s what you need to know. 225 CMR 28.00 is the official DOER regulation (effective September 2025) that defines the technical and commercial rules for solar and storage participation under the SMART 3.0 incentive program, with the core goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, improving grid reliability, peak shaving, protecting land-use, and alignment with the MA 2050 decarbonization plan. The rules apply to distribution companies, and all owners, authorized agents and primary installers of Solar Tariff Generation Units (STGUs) It is important to note that participation is voluntary but binding – each participant must comply with all 28.00 requirements, or as amended by the DOER. The second enrollment period starts on January 2, 2026. The DOER assigns capacity annually by utility load share: 10% for systems 25-500 kW 10% for low-income property And 15% for community shared solar It is important to note that unused capacity does not roll over Program year 2026 will have 450 MW of available capacity for STGUs subject to the capacity cap Base compensation rates and adders will be baselined annually – it is expected to change by ~$0.01 per kWh. Fundamental calculation remains the same: Base compensation rate for program year 2025 for projects > 1 MW is $0.1729 per kWh The base compensation rate proposed for program year 2026 for projects > 1 MW is $0.1556 per kWh Adder rates are as follows: Energy Storage Adder: AC-coupled: The SMART 3.0 calculator will be made available on the mass.gov webpage. It is free to download and easy to use to determine the appropriate storage adder applicable for the project. An applicant will reserve an adder multiplier rate upon the initial application for the Energy Storage Adder. However, changes to as-built solar photovoltaic (PV) capacity or the Energy Storage System relative to the information contained in the initial application may result in an increase or decrease to the size of the Energy Storage Adder. Additional information on applying for the Energy Storage Adder is provided in the Statement of Qualification Reservation Period Guideline DC-coupled true-up: For DC-coupled STGUs with Energy Storage Systems, there are round-trip efficiency losses resulting in lower generation at the production meter. To compensate STGU owners for the AC equivalent of the renewable energy production of the STGU and to calculate the annual true-up payment of the round-trip efficiency losses, an applicant shall use the following formula: i = the number of intervals in a calendar year E i = 15-minute interval ESS DC net metered energy output η T = fixed transformer efficiency factor η INV = fixed inverter efficiency factor R P = SMART incentive rate for the STGU The Department shall establish a transformer efficiency factor that shall be fixed for all STGUs and an inverter efficiency factor that will be fixed for the specific inverter utilized by the STGU. The current established transformer efficiency factor is 2. To receive the annual true up payment, the Energy Storage System’s performance data and inverter efficiency factor must be reported to the Department. On an annual basis, the Department will calculate the annual true up payment. Once calculated, the Solar Program Administrator will provide the data to the Department for verification prior to submittal to the appropriate Electric Distribution Company for payment to the STGU Owner. Administrative process flow: Projects ≥ 1 MW must attest to or file FERC QF status under PURPA Submit a Statement of Qualification (SOQ) DOER issues preliminary SOQ – 24-month reservation period Upon interconnection authorization, apply for final SOQ with financial proofs and BESS compliance Ground-mount projects must also secure all non-ministerial permits, such as planning board and conversation commission approvals Capacity is allocated on a first-come basis (generally, first 10 business days sequenced by ISA application date Waitlist mechanism defined with 10-day response window General requirements: PV must be ≤ 5 MW AC: 10 MW AC for brownfield or landfills Delivery point must be physically in MA No active SMART 2.0 SOQ All STGUs > 1 MW AC that do not qualify for a locational adder (e.g., brownfield, landfill, dual-use, floating, etc.) must be co-located with an ESS that meet 225 CMR 28.07 (5) (e) 1 Brownfield: up to 10 MW, ISA exceptions are allowed with pre-determination from the MassDEP Canopy: must be raised so that at least 75% of area underneath be usable Dual-use Ag: trackers must be at least 8-ft for fixed tilt or 10-ft tracking; ≤2:1 DC:AC ratio (≤ 7.5 MW DC); and agricultural plan is required Floating: PFAS-free material; ≤ 50% surface coverage; ≤ 40 MW statewide cap Public entity/low-income/community shared solar: ≥ 40% allocation and ≥ 20-40% bill credit discount DOER can grant exceptions on a case-by-case basis for good cause, like transmission constraints or non-viable interconnection ESS must be at least 2 hours in discharge duration, at least 65% RTE at the POI, and must demonstrate > 52 cycles per year with proper metering (15-minute intervals) and reporting (1Y historian) The ESS must also be at least 25% capacity of the PV plant Land-use controls and mitigation fee (§ 28.08-28.09) Replaces “greenfield subtractor” with a project-specific Mitigation Fee for ground-mount > 250 kW on undeveloped land. Fee calculated per acre based on habitat, prime farmland, and carbon-risk layers (Bio Map, MassGIS datasets). 25% is due at the time of SOQ application, balance at Final SOQ; refundable if project is canceled or site reclaimed. SMART 3.0 represents a significant evolution in Massachusetts’ approach to distributed solar and storage, bringing clearer requirements, stronger land-use protections, and incentive structures aligned with long-term decarbonization goals. As developers, owners, and installers prepare for the 2026 program year, understanding the regulatory updates and technical obligations will be critical to securing capacity and maximizing project value. With careful planning and proactive compliance, participants can successfully navigate SMART 3.0 and contribute to a more resilient, clean, and reliable energy future for the Commonwealth. Raafe Khan, Shawn Shaw < Back Back

Feb 13, 2025 NERC’s New Compliance Threshold 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

Mar 14, 2025 New Acquisition Opportunity in ISO-NE At Camelot, we always try to keep a finger on the pulse of the solar and energy storage M&A market, as many of our clients turn to us for technical and market due diligence on these sorts of engagements. We just had a noteworthy M&A opportunity come across our desk from our friends at Enerdatics and wanted to share this opportunity with our network. It’s for a portfolio of three hybrid (Solar + BESS) project in ISO-NE, a region where many folks have had development and acquisition interests in the MA SMART + Clean peak programs. A few details to highlight: This portfolio comprises three hybrid projects totaling 15 MW of solar + 6.72 MW of BESS , available for sale in Massachusetts, USA . Each project is for sale at the Notice to Proceed (NTP) stage, with land, permits, and interconnection already secured . The projects are expected to achieve Commercial Operation Date (COD) between Q3 and Q4 of 2026 . They participate in the MA SMART and Clean Peak programs , with potential eligibility under MA SMART 3.0 . The projects qualify for the 30% federal Investment Tax Credit (ITC) and offer strong revenue potential through offtake strategies and ancillary services in ISO-NE . Offers are welcome for the entire portfolio or individual projects , with transaction closing anticipated in Q2 2025 . Camelot has recently performed diligence on, and supported the development of, several projects in MA SMART + Clean Peak Programs and we find that revenues can vary widely based on the revenue stack, BESS system sizing, and offtake strategy. Similar hybrid projects present a great opportunity and favorable economics, especially with the significant adjustments made to the adders proposed in the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources (MA DOER) straw proposal. This is in addition to the changes made to the Alternative Compliance Payment (ACP) rate, where starting in 2026, the rate will increase to $65/MWh and stay at this level until 2032. After 2032, the ACP will return to $45/MWh, where it will remain until 2050. Camelot also has recent data on CAPEX and OPEX applicable to the region and can perform a wholistic economic analysis of the projects to verify the seller’s assumptions. Overall, depending on the quality of the development of course, this could be a good opportunity in an active market. If you are new to the MA SMART + Clean Peak Programs, we encourage you to to check out our relevant articles: Massachusetts SMART and Clean Peak Overview MA SMART Part 2: Key Financial Implications for Hybrid Systems If you are interested, we would be glad to put you in touch with our friends at Enerdatics who are tracking the deal and, of course, if you decide to pursue and need any help on the due diligence side of things, please reach out to Taylor Parsons or Shawn Shaw, PE . The Enerdatics team will also be at #Infocast2025 next week and will have other exclusive deals and insights to share. Be sure to reach out to Mohit Kaul or Kshitij N R to connect! < Back Back

Apr 20, 2026 The Container Problem in LFP Long-Duration Storage Will the LDES story for LFP be hamstrung by larger cells trying to sit in 20-foot containers? As we started to chart how cell form factors are evolving, there is an unmistakable artifact: the incremental change in usable system energy is not as much as it used to be, if these cells are to be housed in prototypical 20-foot ISO shipping containers For a typical 0.04 C use-case, we see that from 280 Ah to 314 Ah, the change in system energy is almost 45.80%; however, when we go from 1,175 Ah to 1,300 Ah, the change in system energy is only 10.40%. As OEMs push the limits from 314 Ah to 500 Ah+ form factors, they must also contend with real-estate constraints, especially because of how power and energy are coupled in Lithium-based systems. This tight coupling means cell geometry affects both thermal management footprint and C-rate flexibility. The energy density ceiling imposed by the container is increasingly the binding constraint, not the cell chemistry. We can see from the image below that, at 0.04 C, we're seeing only 287.50 kW per container at 1,300 Ah, assuming we can fit that in a 20-foot container for a typical 1,500 V architecture -looking ahead to 2,000 V architectures, the challenges compound further: higher bus voltages introduce insulation, switching, and safety certification hurdles that could slow adoption for LDES applications specifically. What's your take? Email us at hello@camelotenergygroup.com for any questions! Raafe Khan < Back Back

May 6, 2026 Field Failures Field Failure #1 : Improper Conductor Torque Ensuring safety and reliability in PV electrical systems starts with attention to detail - here’s a stark reminder of what can happen when conductor terminations are not properly torqued The visible damage to this electrical panel serves as a powerful illustration of how incorrect torque can lead to overheating, equipment failure, or even fire hazards Not to mention any catastrophic failure could potentially propagate and impact other physically and or electrically adjacent equipment Always double-check your connections for the correct torque specifications to maintain system integrity and prevent costly downtime and cost overruns. Field Failure #2 : Improper SWPP Measurers Improper stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) measures can lead to significant erosion and sediment accumulation, as seen in the image. This not only damages our construction sites and surrounding properties but also poses a risk of substantial fines from the Department of Environmental Protection. Let’s commit to effective erosion control and protect our environment. Proper SWPPP measures are crucial for maintaining site integrity and avoiding costly penalties. Field Failure #3 : Proper Direct Burial Conductor Bedding Proper installation practices are essential for the safety and efficiency of PV electrical systems. Improper bedding of direct burial conductors can lead to significant issues, including system failures, safety hazards, and costly repairs. When conductors are improperly bedded, as in this case, where construction debris was left in the trench with the direct burial conductors causing abrasion and ultimately leading to complete conductor failure. Camelot Energy Group plays a critical role in preventing these problems by overseeing the installation process, ensuring that proper QA/QC process is followed, and adherence to industry standards and best practices. William Coon < Back Back