Alectrona
Commercial solar financeA fair, capex-first comparison of the ways to fund a commercial solar system over 50 kWp, for the finance director weighing return against cash flow with no route's downside hidden.
These are representative example reviews, not yet-collected customer feedback. They are written to illustrate the kind of feedback Alectrona aims to earn and are shown as design placeholders while we gather and verify reviews from our first commercial clients. Alectrona is the commercial solar trading brand of RVTC LTD.
What set Alectrona apart was the documented design pack. We had quotes from three installers, but only Alectrona handed us a full set of drawings, a single-line diagram and a design referencing BS 7671 and the G99 connection process. The whole thing read like an engineering submission rather than a sales brochure. Our M&E consultant reviewed it and signed it off without a single query. That gave the board the confidence to release the capital.
Other firms priced our roof off a satellite image and a desktop guess. Alectrona flew an in-house drone survey, fully insured and flown by a qualified commercial drone pilot, and built a 3D model of the actual roof. It picked up plant, vents and a parapet line that a flat aerial photo had completely missed, which changed the panel layout. I would rather find that out at design stage than on the day the scaffold goes up. The accuracy of that survey is the reason I trusted everything that followed.
As a finance director I was wary of being oversold a system bigger than we could use. Alectrona modelled the array against our actual half-hourly consumption data rather than an annual total, so it is sized to what we genuinely draw on site during the day. They were honest that exporting surplus is worth far less than self-consumption, and built the design around that. The capital case stacked up because the engineering was honest, not because the numbers were inflated.
We were undecided between buying outright, leasing and a PPA. Alectrona laid out all three side by side with the pros and cons of each against our balance sheet, instead of pushing the one that pays them best. They were clear about where a PPA makes sense and where capex wins, and pointed us at our own accountant for the tax treatment. The survey and design took a little longer than I expected, but the thoroughness was worth the wait. Genuinely consultative.
The install crew were tidy and well run, and worked to a clear CDM 2015 plan with a proper site induction and RAMS. What impressed me most was the handover. We received a full commissioning pack with the IEC 62446-1 test results, certification, O&M documentation and an as-built record for our maintenance team. As the people who have to live with this asset for the next twenty years, having that paperwork in order matters enormously. Nothing was left loose.
I expected the usual hard sell and got the opposite. After surveying our site Alectrona told us one roof section was not worth covering because of shading, and that a smaller, well-sited array was the better investment than filling every square metre. There was no commission-driven upselling and no pressure. For a six-figure capital project, that straight talk is exactly what you want from the people advising you. We will be using them again on our second site.
There are three genuine ways to fund a commercial solar system: buy it outright (capex), spread the cost with a lease or hire purchase, or take a power purchase agreement where a funder owns the kit and you buy the power. The rest of the finance section covers the tax, rates and export topics that sit on top of whichever method you pick. This page puts the three methods side by side so you can choose on the facts.
Our position is plain. Capex gives the best return where the capital is available, because you own a roughly 25-year asset from day one, you keep every pound of saving, and you claim the first-year capital-allowances relief on the spend. Leasing and a PPA exist to capture the businesses that cannot, or would rather not, commit the capital. They are real options, but each one trades part of the return for easier cash flow, and we say so rather than pretending the choice is free.
The three routes differ on who owns the asset, where the cash flows, and how the system lands on your accounts. With capex you fund the system from your own capital, you own it outright, and it sits on your balance sheet as an asset you control. As a special-rate asset, commercial solar qualifies for the Annual Investment Allowance, which gives a 100% first-year deduction within the £1m annual AIA limit. Full expensing does not apply to solar. That is the route's honest hook, not tax advice, so confirm your own position with a qualified accountant or tax adviser.
Leasing and hire purchase spread the cost across regular payments, with the aim of keeping the system close to cash-flow neutral while you still hold the asset and the tax position. A power purchase agreement asks for no capital up front at all: the funder owns and maintains the system, and you simply buy the electricity it generates, usually below grid price. The catch is that a PPA largely benefits the funder, who keeps the asset, the allowances and most of the long-run upside. On both leasing and a PPA, whether the arrangement sits on or off your balance sheet under IFRS 16 or FRS 102 turns on the terms of the contract, so we do not assert a single answer. That is one for your auditor.
The honest trade-off is return against cash flow. Capex keeps the most of the return inside your business and is the route we recommend wherever the capital is there, but it ties up that capital and puts the asset and its upkeep on your books. Leasing and hire purchase ease the up-front strain while leaving you with the asset, at the cost of the finance charges that sit on top. A PPA removes the capital question entirely, which suits a business that wants the clean power and the resilience without the outlay, but it largely benefits the funder: they own the system and keep the bulk of the value, so it almost never beats capex on pure return where capex is an option.
Grants are not a fourth funding method for most sites. Schemes such as PSDS and Salix, the IETF and UKSPF exist, but they are aimed at eligible bodies, largely the public sector and specific programmes, and most private commercial sites do not qualify. We will tell you straight whether yours does rather than dangle a grant that is not there. Whichever route you weigh, the figures should come from a survey of your own roof and a PV*SOL model, never a rule of thumb, and the accounting and tax treatment should be confirmed with your own advisers before you sign.
Indicative, not financial or tax advice. Confirm the position with a qualified accountant or tax adviser. Your figure comes from a survey-led PV*SOL model.
We model your half-hourly load against a system sized from an on-site drone survey, then set it against the funding route that suits you. Capex first, because it keeps the most of the return, with leasing and PPA there if the cash flow needs them.