.svg){kind=small}
Energy decisions carry long-term financial consequences. Sunchoice Energy evaluates incentives, tax credits, grants, and ownership, PPA, and lease structures together so recommendations withstand financial, operational, and governance scrutiny.Energy decisions carry lasting financial consequences. Sunchoice Energy evaluates incentives, tax credits, grants, and ownership, PPA, and lease structures together to deliver recommendations that withstand scrutiny.
Every recommendation is tested against operating reality, financial exposure, and long-term accountability.
Before anything is recommended, we look at how the decision behaves as conditions change not just how it looks on day one.
Utility exposure, escalation, incentives, contract terms, and counterparty risk are evaluated together so trade-offs are clear and surprises are removed early.
We begin with actual usage, actual costs, and operating constraints — not modeled assumptions.
Ownership, PPA, and financing options are compared using the same conservative inputs.
We test outcomes as rates change, incentives expire, and operating conditions shift.
If a structure introduces hidden exposure, it is eliminated.If projected savings depend on optimistic assumptions, the structure is eliminated.
If projected savings require perfect performance, uninterrupted incentives, or flawless execution, the structure is eliminated.
If downside risk remains with your business while upside is capped, uncertain, or transferred, the structure is eliminated.
If a structure introduces contractual, accounting, or operational complexity without a clear strategic advantage, it is eliminated.
Options that do not meet these standards are removed early, before time or attention is wasted.
Very few options make it through the process. Those that do meet the same requirements.
A recommendation only moves forward when it meets all of the following requirements:
The structure works under conservative assumptions, not best-case scenarios.
Risk is visible, clearly explainable, and manageable over time.
Incentives may improve outcomes, but are not required.
Returns justify the commitment relative to other available uses of capital.
The decision is straightforward to explain internally and defend over time.
When energy decisions are evaluated this way, the outcome isn’t just a project that looks good in a proposal. It’s a decision that holds up after approval, under real operating conditions, and under financial scrutiny.
Savings and funding are evaluated together. Tax credits, incentives, and grant opportunities are identified early and integrated into the structure so available dollars are captured without introducing compliance or performance risk.
This is the difference between a proposal that gets approved and a decision that holds up.
Most energy projects do not fail because the technology stops working.
They fail because the decision was never tested under real conditions before approval.
Without a disciplined decision framework, energy initiatives frequently suffer from one or more of the following:
These issues rarely appear in proposals. They surface years later, after leadership has changed, contracts are locked, snd options are limited.
Before capital is committed or contracts are signed, decisions require independent, experienced judgment.
This is not about
selling a project.
It is about preventing
the wrong decision.