As technology progresses, solar energy is becoming less and less of a novel way to power things every day. From the most straightforward calculators to innovative self-sustaining aircraft, solar energy is everywhere. It is not only praised for its ease of installation and applications but also for being in the public eye. It is indicative of the modern-day green energy movement that is associated with progress and environmental awareness. So it may be surprising to some when a company named Global Energy Storage (GES) that is associated with the transport and storage of less than “green” fossil fuels and petroleum decides to take up the initiative to invest into rooftop solar panels. Over multiple week-long attendances during key portions of the process, my involvement will shed light on this situation.

 

The proposal is simple, but the motivation is not immediately apparent. The idea is to cover the roofs of the buildings of the Malaysian GES Port Klang terminal compound with small/medium solar panels (1086 in total). Although the road from mock-up to installation isn’t as easy as “just doing it”.

​

Most of my time was spent working through different proposals and evaluating options in choosing various contractors (that means: people paid to install and maintain the system). Then, once the optimal proposal was found, a report could then be sent out to the headquarters in London for final approval from the board. In terms of what could have spurred such a desire for solar energy in GES, it comes down to a couple of reasons:

​

A “Green” outward appearance. It’s effective PR for the company and a convenient thing to point at, to prove that they are “doing their part” for the environment.

- Solar power: pretty obviously the panels generate an amount of “free” electricity that goes into the compound’s power grid, reducing the monthly paid power consumption by some amount. 

- Tax incentives: the Malaysian government provides a reduction in corporate taxes for those who own and operate solar panels by a certain amount, posing another external benefit.

Narrowing it down to a pair of contractors - they each had a different type of proposal. The main difference between them was the level of commitment which was required from our end at GES in each deal, and a debate on risk and reward. The two options posed two very different main attractions, those options being:

- ZERO CAPEX: with no money investment involved from GES, we would allow an independent contractor to use our roof space. In exchange, we would get all the electrical related benefits, which would ultimately reduce our costs at the exchange of the opportunity cost of our roof. Although, we wouldn’t reap any tax benefit(s), it goes to the hired contractor instead.

- Buyout: means purchasing the system from the contractor themselves. GES would take all of the burdens and all of the benefits at the same time. This would give us more freedom and the tax bonus, of course. This would mean, unlike ZEROCAPEX, we would have to handle all maintenance and cleaning of ensuing dust from the nearby concrete mill on our own and at our own expense.

​

Ultimately, many decisions needed to be made but the most appealing option to many of the more experienced members of the team said that the ZERO CAPEX option was far more appealing.​​​​​​​​​