Portfolio potential is uneven
The best roof area may sit at the wrong load, tariff, interconnection point, lease term, or expansion plan.
Evidence to connectDaytime load, site control, usable area, circuit conditions
Know if solar pays at your site before a vendor says it does
MEP compares load fit, available space, interconnection conditions, operating risk, commercial structure, and capital returns before equipment vendors enter the process.
Start with one site or a complete facility list. NDA available before data is shared.Conditions that affect the portfolio decision
MEP first reviews the facts that could change scope, value, timing, or operating risk.
A vendor yield model is not an investment case
Losses, degradation, curtailment, exports, demand effects, downtime, taxes, financing, and contract terms must remain visible.
Evidence to connectHourly model, assumptions, capex or PPA terms, downside case
Interconnection belongs in the first screen
Circuit hosting information, protection, metering, application requirements, and schedule can affect feasibility before final design.
Evidence to connectPoint of connection, circuit, voltage, application path
Compare sites on a consistent basis
The comparison method stays consistent, while the technical scope reflects the conditions at each facility.
Portfolio screen
Rank sites by load match, tariff value, space, site control, interconnection evidence, and business timing.
First lookBills, interval load, roofs or land, lease and expansion status
Technical feasibility
Test layout, yield, structural and electrical constraints, generation profile, protection, and maintenance access.
First lookPlans, single-line diagrams, structural information, site survey
Commercial structure
Compare ownership, financing, lease, or onsite PPA options on the same cash flow and risk basis.
First lookCapital criteria, tax position, proposals, contract terms
Procurement and oversight
Issue a common scope, normalize bids, review design, and verify construction and commissioning against acceptance points.
First lookDesign basis, warranties, schedule, performance tests
What each decision owner must approve
The analysis addresses the technical, operating, financial, and commercial questions assigned to each function.
Decision ownerQuestion to answerMEP output
Plant engineering
Can the system connect without disrupting production or future expansion?
Electrical, structural, protection, and phasing criteria
Finance
Which ownership structure produces acceptable risk-adjusted value?
Cash flow, sensitivity, tax, degradation, and downside case
Procurement and legal
Are proposals comparable and contract obligations visible?
Normalized scope, exceptions, guarantees, and remedies
Corporate sustainability
What contribution can be counted and reported credibly?
Generation basis, boundaries, attributes, and reporting method
From the handbook
Tax and liquidity narrow the apparent advantage of ownership
Pre-tax, owning the array looks decisively better than buying its output under an onsite PPA: MXN 69.9 million against 50.8 million in the composite case. After a simplified tax treatment the two land within half a million of each other, 35.6 million against 35.1 million, before any value is placed on keeping the capital liquid.
The lesson for the plant is that the ownership decision is a finance decision as much as an engineering one, and the vendor’s pre-tax comparison will not settle it. MEP runs both cases against your own tax position, cost of capital, and balance sheet before a structure is recommended.
Multi-site solar fit screen
MEP confirms scope after reviewing the portfolio, the current decision, and the available operating data.
Request the starting reviewManagement outputs
- Site ranking and elimination criteria
- Hourly load and generation match
- Interconnection and technical dependency register
- Ownership, PPA, and procurement comparison
Share the site list, current decision, and available data.
An MEP advisor will provide an initial review within 1 business day and identify the site or workstream that should be examined first.
Request a portfolio review- Vendor-neutralCompensated only by the client
- CEMCertified Energy Manager
- CMVPCertified Measurement and Verification Professional
- ISO 50001Lead Auditor
- ASHRAEMember, ASHRAE 211 methodology
- IPMVPVerified engagements
- Since 2015Mexico City and New York
Feedback from operating and procurement teams
Organizations remain confidential. Verification contacts are available during qualified evaluation.
The energy audit recommendations were practical and supported by solid financial and operational rationale, making them easy to evaluate and act upon.
Lori C.
Procurement Manager, Global Auto Parts Supplier
The energy study was very well done and delivered real results. The team took the time to understand how our plant actually operates and provided clear, practical recommendations.
Ismael H.
Plant Manager, Global Mining Company
The support we received on our Power Purchase Agreement was excellent. The team conducted a detailed and professional review.
Héctor V.
Plant Manager, Global Battery Manufacturer
Feedback from completed engagements. Client identities remain confidential. Individual results depend on facility profile, tariff, contract terms, and execution.
Request an assessment. Get a preliminary analysis in 1 business day.
MEP will show you where cost and risk sit at this site before you commit to anything. Four fields to start.
- Reply from a senior advisor, not a sales team
- NDA available before any document is shared
- MEP sells no equipment and takes no supplier commissions