Open-Access Sizing — Detailed Report

1. Data basis and data-quality notes

Warnings the engine raised on this run, in its own words:

• 0 to 822 kVA of generation was netted off recorded demand, but the 75% contract-demand floor binds at 1125 kVA, so the netting bought nothing this period. Reducing contract demand is what unlocks it — at the risk of penal excess-demand charges the first time the plant trips. (raised 27 times across the run.)
• No consumer.referenceConsumptionKWh supplied, so the incremental consumption rebate is not billed. It is a CREDIT, so omitting it OVERSTATES the cost of the licensee supply and therefore flatters open access. The reference is printed on the consumer's own bill.
• 5,407 kWh of banked energy lapses unused each cycle. The consumer paid the PPA rate on these units and receives nothing for them. This is the single clearest signal to down-size the plant or add storage.

2. Methodology and assumptions

Every figure in this report — sweep points, the recommendation and the final bill — comes from the same full day-typed annual billing simulation: each year is built month by month, each month from its own real day-types, each day-type dispatched block by block against the state’s open-access rules. Nothing here is estimated from a single representative day.

Sweep configuration: solar 0–12 MW in 3 MW steps; wind 0–12 MW in 3 MW steps; storage 0–4 MW in 2 MW steps on top of the Stage 2 winner.

3. Stage 1 — solar-only diagnostic

A sweep of solar capacity alone, backed by the grid, before wind is introduced. It does not feed Stage 2 — Stage 2 re-sweeps both together from the original case — it exists to show what solar alone could do.

Solar alone stands up on this load: both 25-year NPV and Year-1 saving are positive at its best size, before wind or storage are considered.

4. Stage 2 — solar and wind combined

A sweep over solar and wind capacity together, both backed by the grid. The mix reported is the NPV-maximising cell in the swept grid.

5. Stage 3 — storage sizing

Battery power and duration swept on top of the Stage 2 mix.

Storage improves on the Stage 2 mix, though it is the smaller of the two effects here.

6. Recommended configuration — full results

7. Annual cost-line breakdown

Printed in the engine’s own line names so the report can be reconciled against a real invoice line by line.

8. Monthly bill vs grid-only

The recommended mix bills lower than grid-only supply in every month of the year.

9. Monthly consumption — renewables against grid

10. 25-year saving trajectory

Annual saving rises across the term as the grid tariff escalates against a flat PPA rate.

11. 25-year NPV by configuration

The sweep evaluates these in sequence — solar first, then wind on top of it, then storage on top of that — so each bar is the best that stage could do, not an arbitrary mix.

12. Cumulative discounted saving

13. Notes for the next iteration

• Replace the reference generation profiles with the site’s own resource data — a solar generation estimate and a wind resource assessment for the actual location — before any figure here is used to size a contract.
• Supply metered data for the remaining months if it exists; the modelled months carry the seasonal shape of the source workbook rather than this site’s own.
• Consider re-running with a narrower wind ceiling — the optimum sits at 0 MW against a swept ceiling of 12 MW, so most of the range is uneconomic by construction and only widens the search.
• If contract demand is renegotiated to unlock the demand-netting floor flagged above, re-run the sweep — the netting warning recurs across the year at the present contract demand.