Execute the levers
Execute the Levers: Engineering and Financing Your Decarbonisation Portfolio
This is where strategy becomes steel, silicon and signed contracts. We convert your roadmap targets into a bankable, sequenced portfolio across renewable procurement, energy efficiency, electrification, and green fuels — each lever engineered to investment grade, competitively financed, and contracted with the risk allocation that lenders and boards will approve.
Typical duration · 6-18 months per lever tranche, phased over the roadmap horizon (typically 3-5 years)
Samples generated 05 Sept 2026, 11:27 pm ISTWhat happens in this step
- 01Lever prioritisation using MAC-curve output — sequencing by abatement cost, capex intensity, and implementation lead time
- 02Renewable procurement structuring: open access, group captive, or round-the-clock (RTC) hybrid+storage, with state-wise regulatory and banking analysis
- 03Energy efficiency audits (investment-grade Level 3) covering utilities, process heat, motors and compressed air, with M&V baseline established
- 04Process electrification feasibility for thermal loads — boiler-to-heat-pump, furnace-to-induction — including grid capacity and tariff impact studies
- 05Green hydrogen / biofuel pathway techno-economics where direct electrification is not viable, sized against actual process duty cycles
- 06Engineering package development (PFC/DPR-level) and lender due-diligence support for debt or PPA-backed financing
- 07Contract structuring and negotiation — PPAs, EPC, O&M, ESCO and offtake agreements — with risk matrices reviewed against IREDA/PFC and commercial bank norms
What we need from you
- MAC curve and prioritised lever list from Target & Roadmap step
- Site load profiles (15-min interval data, 12 months) for all facilities in scope
- Single-line diagrams and existing electrical infrastructure drawings
- Process heat maps and fuel consumption records (3 years) for electrification/H2 assessment
- Land/rooftop availability and ownership documents for captive or open access siting
- Current PPA/tariff structures and DISCOM connection agreements
- Capex/opex approval thresholds and target IRR/payback hurdles from finance team
Worked example (anonymised, illustrative)
Illustrative Captive Renewable + Efficiency Programme · 50 MWac solar-wind hybrid captive + 12 MW energy efficiency retrofit · Western India (Maharashtra/Gujarat industrial corridor)
A multi-site industrial client sought 65% RE penetration by year 3 alongside a 12% energy intensity reduction, requiring parallel-tracked captive generation and efficiency retrofits across three manufacturing plants.
Sample deliverables from this step
Every sample below is analyst-written and anonymised for illustration — structure and depth mirror our real deliverables; figures and names are not from any client engagement.
Illustrative · Growthifye-preparedLever Engineering & Sizing Report
Technical sizing basis for each lever — capacity, technology selection, single-line configuration and interconnection point — validated against site load and grid constraints.
Sample excerpt · Portfolio Sizing Summary (Illustrative) — illustrative figures
| Lever | Capacity | Technology | Est. Capex (INR Cr) | Abatement (tCO2e/yr) |
| Captive Solar-Wind Hybrid | 50 MWac | Solar PV + WTG, group captive | 185 | 68,000 |
| RTC Storage Add-on | 10 MW / 20 MWh | LFP BESS, 33 kV PCS | 42 | N/A (firming) |
| Energy Efficiency Retrofit | 12 MW load reduction | VFDs, heat recovery, compressor upgrade | 28 | 19,500 |
| Process Electrification | 6 MW thermal load | Boiler-to-heat-pump conversion | 35 | 14,200 |
| Green H2 Pilot | 500 kg/day | PEM electrolyser, 2.5 MW | 22 | 3,100 |
- Capex figures are illustrative pre-FEED estimates, +/-25% accuracy
- Abatement figures use CEA grid emission factor 0.716 tCO2/MWh (illustrative)
- Sizing to be refined post detailed engineering (DPR stage)
Illustrative · Growthifye-preparedFinancial Structuring & Term Sheet Memo
Comparative financing structures across levers — captive equity vs. PPA vs. ESCO shared-savings — with indicative term sheet parameters for lender/investor discussions.
Sample excerpt · Indicative Term Sheet Comparison (Illustrative) — illustrative figures
| Parameter | Captive Equity Model | Group Captive PPA | ESCO Shared Savings |
| Tenor | 20 years | 15 years | 7 years |
| Indicative Tariff/Rate | INR 3.10/kWh landed cost | INR 3.45/kWh PPA | 70:30 savings share |
| Debt:Equity | 75:25 | 70:30 | N/A (opex model) |
| Equity IRR (target) | 16-18% | 14-16% | N/A |
| Key Condition Precedent | 26% equity stake, group captive compliance | Open access approval, banking arrangement | Baseline M&V sign-off |
- Figures illustrative only; actual terms subject to lender due diligence
- Group captive structuring requires minimum 26% equity holding per Electricity Rules
EPC & Contract Risk Matrix
Risk allocation matrix across EPC, O&M and offtake contracts, benchmarked to IREDA/PFC lending norms, used to structure bid documents and negotiate with contractors/suppliers.
Sample excerpt · Risk Allocation Matrix Extract (Illustrative) — illustrative figures
| Risk Category | Owner | Mitigation Mechanism |
| Grid curtailment | Developer, with pass-through clause | Deemed generation payment |
| Module/BESS performance degradation | EPC contractor | Performance bank guarantee, 25-yr warranty |
| Land/RoW delays | Client | Milestone-linked payment schedule |
| Fuel price volatility (H2/biofuel) | Shared | Indexed offtake pricing formula |
| Force majeure | Shared per contract | Standard FM clause, insurance backstop |
- Matrix to be finalised jointly with legal counsel prior to RFP issuance
- Aligned to typical Indian project finance risk allocation practice
Commissioning & Execution Schedule
Integrated Gantt-style execution tracker across all levers showing engineering, procurement, construction and commissioning milestones with critical path flags.
Sample excerpt · Execution Milestone Tracker (Illustrative) — illustrative figures
| Lever | Milestone | Target Date | Status | Critical Path |
| Captive Solar-Wind | PPA execution | Month 4 | On track | Yes |
| RTC Storage | BESS supply order placed | Month 6 | Delayed 3 wks | Yes |
| Energy Efficiency | Retrofit Phase 1 complete | Month 8 | On track | No |
| Process Electrification | Heat pump commissioning | Month 14 | Pending FEED | Yes |
| Green H2 Pilot | Electrolyser FAT | Month 16 | Not started | No |
- Dashboard updated monthly during execution phase
- Critical path items reviewed in fortnightly steering committee
Outcomes
- Bankable, lender-ready engineering packages for each shortlisted lever, reducing financial close timelines
- Contracted RE and efficiency capacity delivering measurable tCO2e abatement against roadmap targets
- Optimised capital stack blending equity, debt and shared-savings structures to protect balance sheet
- Portfolio-level execution visibility enabling proactive risk management across multiple concurrent levers
Questions clients ask
Do we need to execute all levers simultaneously?
No — levers are sequenced by the MAC curve from the roadmap step, prioritising low-cost, quick-win measures (efficiency, open access) before capital-intensive levers (green hydrogen, deep electrification) that need longer engineering and financing lead times.
How do you decide between open access, captive, and RTC procurement?
The choice depends on load profile (firm vs. variable), state open access regulations, tariff economics, and risk appetite. We run a comparative techno-commercial analysis for each site before recommending a structure, often blending models across a portfolio.
Who bears execution risk during construction — us or the developer/EPC?
We structure contracts so performance and schedule risk sit with the EPC/developer through milestone payments, bank guarantees and PBGs, while advising you on the residual risks (land, regulatory approvals) that typically remain with the client.
