Alectrona
Commercial solar financeA power purchase agreement puts solar on your roof with no capital outlay, suiting businesses that cannot or will not buy the system, on the clear understanding that the funder, not you, takes most of the long-term return.
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.
A power purchase agreement, or PPA, is the route for a business that wants the electricity a solar system produces without owning the system or finding the capital to buy it. A third-party funder pays for the array, installs it on your roof, and you sign a long-term contract to buy the power it generates, usually at a unit price set below what you pay the grid. You get cheaper, on-site electricity from day one with nothing on the bank balance.
We work with PPAs because they capture businesses that genuinely cannot go capex, but we will not pretend the economics are equal. Buying the system outright is the route we recommend wherever the capital is available, because under a PPA the funder owns a long-life asset on your roof and keeps the bulk of the saving in return for carrying the cost. A PPA trades most of that return for zero up-front spend. That can be the right call. It is rarely the cheapest one over the life of the system.
Under a typical PPA the funder owns and maintains the system for the length of the agreement, and you pay only for the units you use, at the contracted rate. There is no capital outlay and the import saving usually starts in year one. Because you do not own the asset, you do not claim the capital allowances on it, so the first-year Annual Investment Allowance relief that makes a bought system attractive sits with the funder, not with you. The contract runs for a long term, often well over a decade, and the detail of the rate, any annual price escalator, the service obligations and the end-of-term options is where a PPA is won or lost, so those terms deserve close legal and financial review before you sign.
Whether the system sits on or off your balance sheet under a PPA depends entirely on the contract. On-versus-off treatment under IFRS 16 or FRS 102 turns on the specific terms, so we do not assert a single answer and we would point you to your auditor on the accounting. The value in any solar system, PPA included, is in the power you use on site rather than what you export, because an exported unit is paid far less than an imported one is worth, which is why a well-structured PPA is designed around your own consumption. We model your roof in PV*SOL so the numbers you compare against capex and leasing are calculated from the real building, not a rule of thumb.
A PPA suits a business that wants on-site solar with no capital outlay and no asset on its books, or one that would rather a funder carried the cost and the maintenance than tie up its own cash. The honest trade-off is plain: a PPA largely benefits the funder. They own the asset, they claim the capital allowances, and they take most of the long-term return in exchange for putting up the money. You get a lower unit rate and a clean balance-sheet position, but you give up the ownership and the relief that make capex the strongest route.
So capex is the better call wherever you have, or can borrow, the capital, because owning the system keeps nearly all of the saving and the tax relief in your business. Leasing or hire purchase sits in between, spreading the cost while you keep the asset and its tax position. We are happy to set capex, leasing and a PPA side by side against your own modelled figures so you choose on the facts. Everything here is indicative and not financial or tax advice; confirm the accounting and the relief with a qualified adviser before you commit.
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. Whether a PPA or lease sits on or off your balance sheet under IFRS 16 depends on the contract; ask your auditor.
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.