CUSTOMER RESOURCE | INVESTMENT & LOCATION DECISIONS

Sample infrastructure investment memo

Illustrative example: deciding which of two BESS projects should proceed to detailed diligence. It shows how a customer’s team can combine software outputs with its own review and decision record; it is not a completed client engagement.

Download sample memo PDF

Updated 16 October 2026 · Free download, no registration.

Decision requested: approve a limited diligence budget and shortlist the preferred route. No acquisition commitment is proposed. No real asset, return forecast or connection offer is represented here.

The decision

Which project offers the more credible route to an acceptable risk-adjusted return: later operation with documented firm capacity, or earlier operation under flexible conditions?

Information to use

Connection documents; land and permitting status; technical design and energy limits; capex and opex; market and dispatch scenarios; contracts; physical and climate exposures; sources and evidence dates.

Alternatives assessed

Site A: later firm route

Connection evidence: Documented firm-capacity offer, subject to stated conditions.

Commercial question: Does the later start still meet the required return after delay sensitivity?

Technical question: Can delivery milestones and commissioning dependencies be met?

Decision today: Reference route for detailed diligence.

Site B: earlier flexible route

Connection evidence: Earlier flexible offer; curtailment limits and operating impact need validation.

Commercial question: Does earlier revenue outweigh restrictions, additional equipment and downside risk?

Technical question: Can the operating model meet connection conditions and contracted obligations?

Decision today: Keep as a conditional alternative until dispatch and contract risks are bounded.

Illustrative conclusion by the customer’s decision team: advance Site A as the reference case while testing Site B against an agreed curtailment and cost downside. Prefer Site B only if its earlier start creates value after restrictions, implementation costs and reserve requirements, and the connection terms can be validated.

Investment decision inputs

Build comparable, dated cash-flow scenarios for both options. Show project NPV and IRR against a stated hurdle, plus downside cases for start date, revenue, availability and costs.
Keep unlevered project returns separate from financing and equity returns. Reconcile capex, working capital, taxes, replacement costs and end-of-life assumptions to the agreed model scope.
Show grid, societal and resilience benefits alongside financial value. Count them as cash flows only where a contract, tariff or other evidenced mechanism monetises them.

Evidence, assumptions and gaps

Connection offer: source, date and validity recorded

Establishes the terms to test, not a guaranteed delivery date.

Connection lead: confirm milestones and dependencies.

Dispatch and revenue model: assumptions identified

Flexible operation may change achievable cash flow.

Analyst + engineer: test restrictions and downside cases.

Missing: final capex and permit review

Acquisition price and readiness remain conditional.

Project team: obtain quotations and specialist review.

What would trigger an update?

Connection or permitting milestone changes; offer expiry or revised curtailment terms.
Material capex, market-price or operating assumptions move outside agreed tolerances.
Actual generation, dispatch or asset performance diverges from the case where operating data exists.

What the customer buys: configured software analysis of supplied project data, comparable scenarios, structured memo outputs and a source/assumption/gap register. The customer’s team validates the inputs and records its own conclusion. Software and data updates follow the agreed reporting needs.

Make it specific to your project.

Tell us the decision, asset and timeline. We will agree the data needed, scope and deliverables.

Discuss a project decision Explore project and location assessments