Anonymised project workstream · Grid and wheeling · Southern Africa

The plant could generate the energy. I still had to check whether the network could deliver it and the contracts would pay for it.

I reviewed the connection and wheeling workstream for a utility-scale solar IPP alongside the project model and agreements. Export capacity, interface works, losses, curtailment, outages, metering and settlement were treated as separate risks because they affect cash flow in different ways.

~50 MWac solar PV33 kV connection basisPrivate offtake and wheelingRevenue · CFADS · DSCR

The first distinction

“Grid connected” was not enough for the finance case.

The connection route needed an agreed point of injection, bay and protection scope, meter hierarchy, ownership of network works, grid-code testing, wheeling and system-operation agreements, and a clear route from measured generation to the customer invoice.

I kept three issues separate: connection delay before COD, technical losses during delivery, and curtailment or network outage after operations begin. Combining them into one generic energy haircut would have hidden who controlled each risk and what remedy should exist.

My read

The model starts with MWh. The lender case needs paid MWh, the timing of the cash and a clear remedy when the missing energy was caused by the network rather than the project company.

Evidence I worked from

Connection and energy studies, single-line diagrams and proposed point of injection.
Network works scope, responsibility matrix, cost estimate and construction timetable.
Grid, wheeling, system-operation and operational-agent terms.
PPA delivery point, metering, curtailment, deemed-energy and payment provisions.
EPC interface, grid-code testing, energisation and delay-liquidated-damages schedule.
Financial model lines for losses, delay, curtailment, collection and reserves.

What I checked

The connection study and the project agreements needed to describe the same project.

Interface	Question I asked	Financial consequence
Export capacity	Does approved connection capacity match the AC output and study assumptions?	Permanent export cap or generation haircut.
Network works	Who designs, funds, owns and completes the bay, line, protection and metering?	CAPEX gap, COD delay, IDC and sponsor support.
Loss factors	Where are losses measured and can the factor change over the PPA term?	Lower delivered MWh and tariff netback.
Curtailment	Who may instruct it, for what reasons, and when is deemed energy payable?	Revenue loss, DSCR reduction or compensated cash.
Outages	What planned and forced outage allowances exist, and which party carries the cost?	Liquidity pressure and possible DSRA use.
Metering	Which meter is binding and how are gaps, estimates and disputes resolved?	Invoice timing, working capital and collection risk.
Long-stop / CPs	Can the project draw debt or reach COD before the grid agreements are effective?	Funding delay, termination exposure and sunk development cost.

Downside cases

I kept the grid risks separate

Connection delay: Lost revenue, added development cost, financing fees and IDC.
Permanent export cap: Reduced P90 energy and lower debt capacity across the tenor.
Technical losses: Separate deduction between injection and customer delivery.
Planned outage: Annual allowance with or without compensation.
Forced outage: Short-term revenue loss, collection delay and reserve use.
Economic curtailment: Volume stress with contract attribution and a deemed-energy alternative.

Why I kept them separate

A lower yield assumption cannot fix a badly allocated grid risk.

If I blend grid losses, curtailment and project availability into one energy haircut, the model stops telling me who controls the loss and which contract should provide a remedy. A technical performance issue is different from a network event, and both are different from a collection delay.

That distinction also sharpened the lender questions. Normal technical losses may be acceptable. Unlimited uncompensated curtailment or an open-ended connection scope is a different risk entirely.

What I recommended

Do not rely on the finance case until the connection basis, network-work responsibility, loss factors, curtailment allocation, metering protocol and grid conditions precedent agree across the technical and commercial documents.

Disclosure

This is an anonymised project workstream. The page does not claim final network approval, guaranteed export capacity or completed connection works. Project and counterparty names are withheld.

What came out of the review

The grid work became part of the bankability plan.

Grid assumption register

Material model inputs linked to the relevant document, status, owner, confidence and evidence still required.

Interface matrix

Connection, PPA, wheeling, system operations and EPC obligations compared for gaps and inconsistent definitions.

Scenario and lender pack

Delay, losses, outages and curtailment translated into revenue, CFADS, DSCR, debt capacity and mitigation.

Grid and curtailment review

Want to know which MWh in the model are actually deliverable and payable?

Send the connection study, SLD, grid agreements, PPA, EPC interface and model. I will trace the missing MWh back to the party and document that creates the risk.

Discuss a review See the linked finance case