Capital committees see solar proposals regularly — and reject or defer many because the paper confuses a sales brochure with an investment case. A sound solar investment board paper does one job: it asks directors to approve a defined next step on the strength of independent feasibility, with risks visible and alternatives considered.
This guide outlines structure, content, and common failures for UK commercial rooftop PV papers.
What the board is actually deciding
Clarify the approval ask before writing. Typical staged asks:
Stage A — Proceed to confirmatory work. Authorise structural survey, roof condition inspection, and formal grid enquiry based on positive feasibility. Budget £5,000–£15,000 depending on site.
Stage B — Approve capital install. Authorise full project capex after surveys, quotes, and final design. Often six figures plus.
Stage C — Portfolio programme. Approve feasibility spend across multiple sites and a capital envelope for tranche one installs.
Mixing stages confuses committees. A paper that smuggles full install approval behind a feasibility summary will get sent back.
Feasibility belongs before Stage A. Commission it via site assessment or advance from free screening when appropriate — see when to order a solar feasibility study.
Recommended paper structure
1. Recommendation (half page)
State pursue, defer, or do not pursue in the first paragraph. Include estimated capacity, annual generation, payback or NPV, and total capex order of magnitude. Name the approval requested today.
2. Strategic context (half page)
Link to net-zero targets, energy cost volatility, tenant demand, or asset enhancement. One paragraph — boards do not need a climate essay.
3. Site summary (one page)
Address, building use, roof description, tenancy and lease notes, and why this site was selected (especially in portfolios). Map or aerial image helps.
4. Financial summary (one page)
Table format works: capex assumption, annual savings, payback, NPV, key sensitivities. State tariff, export, and self-consumption assumptions explicitly. Note that figures are feasibility-grade — see how to read a solar feasibility report.
5. Risks and mitigations (one page)
Structure, grid, planning, lease, and data quality risks with mitigations. Example: “Structural capacity unconfirmed — mitigate via appointed engineer survey in approved budget.”
6. Next steps and timeline (half page)
What happens if approved: survey appointments, tender approach, target install window, responsible owner.
7. Appendices
Full feasibility dossier, example report equivalent from your provider, and optionally market context such as commercial solar feasibility in 2026.
Evidence the board should see
Independent feasibility — not installer quotes alone. Compare feasibility study vs installer quote.
Written verdict with conditions, not only spreadsheets.
Engineering and grid flags at screening level — honest about what is unconfirmed.
Methodology reference — link or summarise modelling approach. Stage1Energy publishes methodology for this purpose.
Limitations — feasibility is not design or structural sign-off. See feasibility vs design and feasibility vs structural survey.
Directors trust papers that say what could go wrong.
Financial presentation tips
Use organisation-familiar metrics. If the board always sees NPV at a stated discount rate, match it.
Show one sensitivity table: electricity price ±10%, self-consumption ±10%, capex ±10%. Robust projects survive; marginal ones expose themselves.
Avoid precision falsehood — “4.37 year payback” from estimated load is weaker than “approximately five years, subject to tenant consumption confirmation.”
Do not double-count benefits (e.g. FIT legacy assumptions on new build).
Portfolio papers
Portfolio approvals need a ranking table: site name, capacity, payback, NPV, verdict, proposed year. Explain screening methodology — portfolio solar feasibility screening — so directors know these are the best candidates, not the only ones considered.
Request feasibility budget for tranche two in the narrative if the programme is multi-year.
Common reasons papers fail
No clear ask. “The board is asked to note progress” achieves nothing.
Installer quote as primary evidence. Commercial terms without independent viability test.
Missing lease or landlord angle. Especially for multi-let assets.
Ignored grid risk. G99 timeline can exceed board patience.
Overstated generation certainty. Feasibility estimates are screened, not guaranteed — how accurate solar generation estimates are sets the frame.
Burying the verdict. Recommendation must be visible on page one.
Using Stage1Energy dossiers in papers
Stage1Energy’s commercial solar feasibility dossiers are formatted for extraction into board material: executive summary, financial tables, flags, and verdict. Fixed fee at £1,250 per site, five working days standard delivery.
Lift the summary and tables into your template; attach the full PDF as appendix. If you need a lighter pre-check for other sites in the programme, free screening supports the portfolio narrative without full dossier cost on every address.
Closing the loop after approval
Record board conditions in the project file. If approval was “proceed subject to structural survey,” the next paper should open with survey results — not repeat feasibility verbatim.
Good board papers make the eventual install paper easier: feasibility answered “should we?” surveys answer “can we?” quotes answer “who and how much?”
Start with feasibility worth putting in front of a committee. Everything else is formatting.
Template language for conditions
When feasibility returns “pursue with conditions,” mirror those conditions verbatim in the resolution text. Examples: “approval subject to structural survey confirming ballast loading”; “approval subject to landlord consent under clause X”; “approval subject to G99 offer within £Y contingency”. Directors should vote on the same caveats the feasibility author documented — not a softened version that disappears from the minutes.
If conditions fail, the paper trail should show why the project paused. That protects estates teams when stakeholders ask why a “approved” site did not proceed to install in the same financial year.