NC-METH-001 v1.1 — Annex H: LC-Specific Cost Driver Documentation¶
Per-Typology Engineering Review Framework · The Methodology Canonical CAPEX Gap Closure¶
12 May 2026 · Internal · Author: AI-assisted, S. Rubinyi review · Engineering review per WP2
H.0 Overview¶
Annex H closes AUDIT-040: documenting the LC-specific cost drivers that justify (or revise) the LC v1.0 register per-typology unit costs as the basis for methodology canonical CAPEX going forward.
This annex is the gating event for v1.1.0 methodology lock. Until Annex H closes, the methodology has no documented per-typology canonical CAPEX — only the LC v1.0 register and the memory's $700–1,100/kWp range. The Phase 3B desk bottom-up retraction (per the v1.1.0 Part C revision) cleared away false canonical claims; Annex H produces the validated replacement through WP2 engineering review + WP4 analyst integration.
H.0.1 Why this annex matters¶
Per Part C-revA § C.7 cross-typology summary:
| Typology | LC v1.0 canonical | vs memory range $700–1,100/kWp |
|---|---|---|
| T1 rooftop | $412 | BELOW range |
| T2 ground | $813 | mid-range |
| T4A carport | $742 | at lower bound |
| T4B-DC arterial | $700 | at lower bound (conditional on single-mob) |
| T6W canal canopy | $732 | at lower bound |
| Weighted PV total | $724/kWp | within memory range |
Four of five PV typologies sit at or below the memory range lower bound. T1 sits below the lower bound. Two possible diagnoses:
- LC has genuine structural cost advantages that justify the below-range positioning — zero-foundation rooftops, IEAT-owned parking, concrete-banked canals, single-mobilisation procurement, IEAT-direct offtake
- LC v1.0 register systematically understates unit costs — and the methodology should revise
WP2 engineering review is the diagnostic tool. Annex H is the deliverable.
H.0.2 What Annex H contains¶
| Section | Content | Status |
|---|---|---|
| H.1 | Methodology canonical question framing | Written today |
| H.2 | LC v1.0 baseline canonical | Written today |
| H.3 | LC-specific cost driver framework (6 driver categories) | Written today |
| H.4 | Per-typology cost driver analysis (T1, T2, T4A, T4B-DC, T6W, BESS) | Framework written today; engineering validation [PENDING WP2] |
| H.5 | Premium adjustments framework | Written today |
| H.6 | Application to non-LC estates (transferability) | Framework written today; per-estate [PENDING WP4] |
| H.7 | Annex H lock criteria | Written today |
The annex is structurally complete; the engineering-validated numerical content is gated by WP2 (Weeks 1–4) + WP4 (Weeks 5–8).
H.0.3 What Annex H does NOT do¶
- Does not invent numbers without engineering validation. Where WP2 hasn't yet produced data, the annex says
[PENDING WP2 engineering review]explicitly. The Phase 3B retraction was the lesson; this annex is structured to never repeat it. - Does not promise specific methodology canonical values before WP2 closes. The expected ranges in H.4 are framing for engineering review, not numerical pre-commitments.
- Does not replace bottom-up cost estimation for new estates (Annex L, deferred to v1.2). LC's top-down per-typology framework is appropriate for IEAT-pioneered typologies; bottom-up validation is the future complement.
H.1 The methodology canonical question¶
H.1.1 What "methodology canonical" means¶
A methodology canonical CAPEX value per typology is a value that:
- Is defensible to an Independent Engineer (KTB IE per Part E § E.4.9 should not flag it as anomalous)
- Is transferable across estates with documented adjustments
- Is traceable to engineering basis (modules, structural, electrical, civil, soft costs by typology)
- Is updated annually per regulatory monitoring (Part F § F.4)
The LC v1.0 register has per-segment unit costs that average to the per-typology values in H.2.1. Whether these are methodology canonical or LC-specific depends on whether the cost basis transfers to other estates without material adjustment.
H.1.2 The Phase 3B lesson¶
The retracted Phase 3B desk bottom-up produced claimed "methodology canonical" values (T1 $645, T4A $950, T4B-DC $1,350, T6W $1,150) that were not supported by engineering data. The Part C v1.1.0 included these as a comparison column; v1.1.0-revA removed them; the retraction notice formalised the position.
The lesson encoded in Annex H: methodology canonical values must come from engineering review, not desktop reasoning. WP2 produces the engineering basis. Until it does, the methodology canonical column reads [PENDING WP2].
H.1.3 WP2 + WP4 deliverable¶
WP2 (Steven + engineering firm, Weeks 1–4, ~$20–30K): - Engineering review of LC v1.0 unit costs by typology - Per-typology cost build-up (modules / structural / electrical / civil / soft costs) - T1 $412 priority engineering review (below-range diagnosis) - LC-specific structural premium documentation - Coastal C4 corrosion verification (closes AUDIT-002)
WP4 (analyst integration, Weeks 5–8, alongside per-tenant credit work): - Apply WP2 outputs to Annex H sections - Transferability analysis for BP, Lat Krabang, MTP, Lamphun (next four pipeline estates) - Update Part C C.X.4 with validated methodology canonical - Update LC model OPEX per AUDIT-016 closure
H.2 LC v1.0 baseline canonical¶
H.2.1 Per-typology unit costs (from LC v1.0 segment register)¶
| Typology | LC segs | LC MWp | LC EPC | LC v1.0 $/kWp |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| T1 rooftop | 12 | 2.15 | $0.89M | $412 |
| T2 ground-mount | 7 | 4.35 | $3.54M | $813 |
| T4A carport | 7 | 11.35 | $8.42M | $742 |
| T4B-DC arterial | 16 | 1.83 | $1.28M | $700 (single-mob conditional) |
| T6W canal canopy | 5 | 14.91 | $10.91M | $732 |
| PV total | 47 | 34.59 | $25.04M | $724 weighted |
| BESS | 0 | 0 | $0 | $175/kWh + thermal premium |
H.2.2 Memory-range context¶
Per memory edit 16: "Solar $700–1,100/kWp (TOPCon 610Wp)" is the canonical range across all PV typologies.
LC v1.0 weighted average $724 sits within the range. Per-typology positioning: - T1 at $412 — below range - T2 at $813 — mid-range - T4A at $742, T4B-DC at $700, T6W at $732 — all at or near lower bound
H.2.3 What needs investigation¶
Per Part C-revA § C.8 acknowledged gaps:
- T1 unit cost below memory range — highest WP2 engineering review priority
- Per-typology methodology canonical doesn't yet exist — this annex is the deliverable
- C4 corrosion premium application (AUDIT-002) — verify in unit cost build-up
WP2 investigates each.
H.3 LC-specific cost driver framework¶
The methodology recognises six driver categories that may make a typology cheaper or more expensive at LC vs other estates. Each driver category is assessed for each typology in H.4.
H.3.1 Estate-level drivers (apply uniformly across all typologies at the estate)¶
- Concession structure: 25-year MSA with 75.5/24.5 NewCo/IEAT JV; IEAT-direct land access; no separate land cost
- IEAT JV terms: IEAT covers some site-prep and infrastructure access; reduces SPV-side cost
- Regulatory regime: EEC eligibility (LC is in EEC); BOI Activity 5.2.1; EIA addendum process
- Mature industrial estate: existing infrastructure (roads, drainage, MV switchgear); reduces capital-intensity of new deployments
- Local supply chain: established Thai EPC vendor ecosystem; competitive procurement
H.3.2 Geographic drivers¶
- Coastal location: LC is coastal; C4 corrosion premium applies (per AUDIT-002 investigation in WP2)
- EEC location: 13-yr BOI enhancement available [PENDING WP5 evaluation]; tax-driven IRR uplift
- Bangkok proximity: ~120 km from Bangkok; logistical cost moderate (vs remote estates)
- Climate: tropical with monsoon; influences module degradation curve, soiling, biofouling (T6W)
H.3.3 Site-level drivers (IEAT estate-specific)¶
- IEAT-owned admin and factory buildings: provide T1 rooftop deployment without tenant negotiation; lower coordination cost
- IEAT-owned parking infrastructure: provides T4A canopy deployment without tenant access negotiation; lower mobilisation cost
- IEAT internal road network: provides T4B-DC arterial canopy deployment; single-mobilisation procurement possible
- Concrete-lined canal banks: provides T6W load-bearing foundation without earthwork; LC-pioneered structural pattern
- Existing electrical infrastructure: reduces MV switchgear and grid connection cost; shorter cable runs
H.3.4 Typology-specific drivers¶
Per Part C C.X.4 (in revA):
T1 rooftop drivers (zero-foundation; small per-segment scale): - No foundation work; ballast or penetration-anchored on existing roof - Short cable runs to building MV switchgear (BTM consumption point) - Higher per-segment fixed cost amortisation (smaller MWp per segment, ~180 kWp average at LC) — counteracting force
T2 ground-mount drivers (mature commercial-scale; standardised): - Standard pile foundations on compacted soil - Standardised installation (T2 is global commercial-scale default) - No special LC advantage observed; LC at methodology mid-range
T4A carport drivers (drilled-pier feasibility; IEAT-direct): - Drilled-pier feasibility on paved compacted fill (LC parking lots are mature) - 3.0 m soffit clearance (standard parking, not low-clearance industrial) - IEAT-direct offtake — no tenant negotiation premium - Single-mobilisation procurement (whole parking lot per RFQ) - Standardised steel design
T4B-DC arterial canopy drivers (LC-pioneered; single-mob procurement): - LC-pioneered dual N/S configuration (no equivalent precedent published) - Single-mobilisation procurement (whole arterial in one EPC) — conditional; +25% premium if phased - IEAT internal road network mature (no overhead utility relocation typically required) - Dual N/S geometry captures more daily sky than single-orientation
T6W wide canal canopy drivers (LC-pioneered at scale; load-bearing banks): - Concrete-lined canal banks already load-bearing — zero foundation earthwork - Fixed-portal-frame standardised (portals at 8–12 m intervals) - IEAT canal corridors planned and accessible (no separate canal-use rights negotiation) - LC-pioneered structural pattern; methodology canonical built largely on LC data
BESS drivers (cost-curve standardised; not LC-specific): - LFP container cost is global commodity; no LC advantage - Site-specific drivers (thermal management in tropical climate, fire/safety setbacks) generic
H.3.5 Procurement drivers¶
- Single-mobilisation vs phased: LC procurement strategy is single-mob for T4A and T4B-DC; phased deployment adds 25% premium
- Scale: LC envelope at 34.59 MWp is mid-scale; not large enough for utility-scale procurement advantages but large enough for vendor specialisation
- EPC vendor ecosystem: Thai EPC market for IEAT estates is competitive (5–7 viable bidders); standard EPC market pricing
- Module sourcing: TOPCon 610Wp directly from manufacturer or via Thai distributor; standard pricing
H.3.6 Operations drivers (affect OPEX, not CAPEX directly — but inform deployment cost)¶
- Cleaning frequency: T6W monthly (water-proximate); others quarterly — addressed in Part D § D.3
- Biofouling on T6W: cumulative water exposure; ongoing opex
- Bird management on T6W: deterrent strategy required
- Security: IEAT estate security adequate for most deployments; no estate-specific premium
- IEAT JV administrative: 24.5% IEAT share covers some operational oversight
H.4 Per-typology cost driver analysis¶
H.4.1 T1 — Rooftop (highest engineering review priority)¶
H.4.1.1 LC v1.0 baseline¶
- LC v1.0 unit cost: $412/kWp (12 segments / 2.15 MWp / $0.89M)
- Average per-segment scale: ~180 kWp (range ~100–300 kWp)
- vs memory range: BELOW the $700–1,100/kWp lower bound
H.4.1.2 Hypothesised LC-specific advantages¶
Three plausible explanations for the below-range positioning:
- Zero-foundation advantage: existing IEAT-owned admin/factory rooftops; no foundation work; ballast or penetration-anchored racking only. Foundation cost typically ~10–15% of EPC for ground-mount; eliminated for rooftop.
- Shortest cable runs to BTM consumption point: rooftop modules connect via roof-edge to building's existing MV switchgear; cable runs typically < 50 m; vs ground-mount where 200–500 m cable runs are common
- Existing electrical infrastructure: building's MV switchgear already exists and is sized for building load; no separate substation extension
H.4.1.3 Counteracting factor¶
Small per-segment scale (~180 kWp average) should drive unit cost UP relative to larger installations. Fixed costs (mobilisation, design, commissioning) amortise across fewer kWp. Methodology expectation: T1 at LC should be higher than T2 or T4A, not lower.
This counterforce is what makes T1 $412 anomalous. Either (a) the zero-foundation advantage and short cable runs more than offset the small-scale disadvantage, or (b) the LC v1.0 number systematically understates.
H.4.1.4 [PENDING WP2 engineering review]¶
Engineering review questions for T1:
| # | Question | Method |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | What is the bottom-up cost build for a representative LC T1 segment (~180 kWp)? | Per-component pricing: modules + inverters + BOS + structural + electrical + soft costs |
| 2 | What is the ACM remediation premium where applicable, and is it baked into the LC v1.0 register or separately tracked? | Review LC v1.0 source for ACM allowance |
| 3 | What is the structural reinforcement premium where ROOF-001 finds beam upgrades needed? | Review per-rooftop ROOF-001 outcomes |
| 4 | Does the LC v1.0 figure include or exclude soft costs (design, commissioning, interconnect)? | Compare to LC model Construction tab for soft cost build |
| 5 | Is $412/kWp achievable for a comparable BP rooftop deployment? | Transferability test for BP context |
H.4.1.5 Expected methodology canonical post-WP2¶
Three scenarios:
| Scenario | LC T1 canonical post-WP2 | Methodology canonical for general use |
|---|---|---|
| A: LC v1.0 vindicated | $412 (LC-specific advantages confirmed) | $500–700 (LC-specific drivers documented; transferability limited) |
| B: LC v1.0 partly under-stated | $500–600 (LC after C4 / soft cost / reinforcement adjustments) | $600–800 |
| C: LC v1.0 materially understated | $700+ (LC restatement) | $700–900 |
[PENDING WP2 engineering review to select among A/B/C]
H.4.1.6 [PENDING] confidence range¶
Final T1 methodology canonical: [PENDING WP2] $/kWp with confidence interval [PENDING WP2]
H.4.2 T2 — Ground-mount¶
H.4.2.1 LC v1.0 baseline¶
- LC v1.0 unit cost: $813/kWp (7 segments / 4.35 MWp / $3.54M)
- vs memory range: mid-range
H.4.2.2 Hypothesised LC-specific drivers¶
- T2 is mature commercial-scale solar; no LC-specific advantages observed
- LC's smaller buffer parcels may have slightly higher per-MWp fixed-cost overhead, but offset by simple installation
- No coastal premium adjustment yet validated (AUDIT-002 [PENDING WP2])
H.4.2.3 Premium adjustments to consider¶
- C4 corrosion +10–15% if coastal (LC is coastal)
- Soil contamination remediation per parcel
- Drainage / grading premium for sloped parcels
- Substation extension if far from MV switchgear
H.4.2.4 [PENDING WP2 engineering review]¶
| # | Question |
|---|---|
| 1 | Is C4 corrosion premium baked into LC v1.0 T2 unit cost? |
| 2 | What is the bottom-up cost build for a representative LC T2 segment (~620 kWp average)? |
| 3 | How does LC T2 compare to a hypothetical inland equivalent? |
H.4.2.5 Expected methodology canonical¶
LC v1.0 $813 likely close to methodology canonical for similar deployments (LC sits in mid-range; transferability strong). [PENDING WP2 confirmation]
H.4.3 T4A — Carport¶
H.4.3.1 LC v1.0 baseline¶
- LC v1.0 unit cost: $742/kWp (7 segments / 11.35 MWp / $8.42M)
- Largest single segment: LC-T4A-01 at 2.88 MWp
- vs memory range: at lower bound
H.4.3.2 Hypothesised LC-specific advantages¶
Per H.3.4: 1. Drilled-pier feasibility on paved compacted fill (mature parking lots) 2. 3.0 m soffit clearance (standard parking, not low-clearance industrial) 3. IEAT-direct offtake (no tenant negotiation premium) 4. Single-mobilisation procurement (whole parking lot per RFQ) 5. Standardised steel design
H.4.3.3 [PENDING WP2 engineering review]¶
| # | Question |
|---|---|
| 1 | What is the bottom-up cost build for LC-T4A-01 (the 2.88 MWp flagship)? |
| 2 | What is the structural steel cost basis? Marine-grade vs standard? |
| 3 | Drilled-pier depth and bearing assumptions — what range applies for LC vs harder-soil estates? |
| 4 | Is the IEAT-direct premium-avoidance quantifiable? |
| 5 | C4 corrosion premium status in LC T4A? |
H.4.3.4 Expected methodology canonical¶
- For coastal estates with similar conditions: $742 + C4 premium (10–15%) = $820–855
- For inland estates: closer to $742 (no C4)
- Industrial estates with low-clearance constraints: higher (soffit clearance design premium)
[PENDING WP2 engineering review]
H.4.4 T4B-DC — Arterial canopy (dual N/S)¶
H.4.4.1 LC v1.0 baseline¶
- LC v1.0 unit cost: $700/kWp (16 segments / 1.83 MWp / $1.28M)
- Conditional: single-mobilisation procurement
- vs memory range: at lower bound
H.4.4.2 Hypothesised LC-specific advantages¶
T4B-DC is LC-pioneered. No published global precedent for dual N/S arterial canopy at scale. Per H.3.4:
- Single-mobilisation procurement (whole arterial in one EPC) — conditional
- IEAT internal road network mature
- Dual N/S geometry standardised at LC
H.4.4.3 The phased-deployment risk¶
If procurement forces phased deployment (e.g., EPC market doesn't have arterial-canopy-specialist firm willing to do whole arterial), unit cost rises +25% to $875/kWp. This is the key risk for T4B-DC methodology canonical.
H.4.4.4 [PENDING WP2 engineering review]¶
| # | Question |
|---|---|
| 1 | Is the Thai EPC market structurally able to deliver single-mobilisation arterial canopy procurement? |
| 2 | What is the bottom-up cost build for an LC T4B-DC segment (~115 kWp average)? |
| 3 | Per-arterial vs per-segment economics: does single-mob actually deliver the 25% advantage assumed? |
| 4 | Overhead utility relocation premium frequency at LC (and other estates) |
H.4.4.5 Expected methodology canonical¶
[PENDING WP2] — but likely two-tier: - T4B-DC single-mob: $700–750/kWp - T4B-DC phased: $875–950/kWp
Estates without mature arterial networks (newer estates) likely fall into the phased tier.
H.4.5 T6W — Wide canal canopy¶
H.4.5.1 LC v1.0 baseline¶
- LC v1.0 unit cost: $732/kWp (5 segments / 14.91 MWp / $10.91M)
- vs memory range: at lower bound
H.4.5.2 Hypothesised LC-specific advantages¶
T6W is LC-pioneered at scale. Per H.3.4:
- Concrete-lined canal banks already load-bearing — zero foundation earthwork
- Fixed-portal-frame standardised (8–12 m portal intervals)
- IEAT canal corridors planned and accessible
- Methodology canonical largely built on LC data (limited precedent elsewhere)
H.4.5.3 Operational premiums affecting CAPEX¶
- C4 corrosion +15–20% for coastal-canal estates (saltwater + humidity)
- Bathymetric / dredging premium if canal bottom needs preparation
- Bird deterrent system $15–30K/segment
- Anti-soiling coatings (capex + opex)
- Marine-grade steel +10–15%
H.4.5.4 [PENDING WP2 engineering review]¶
| # | Question |
|---|---|
| 1 | Bottom-up cost build for LC-T6W-01 (the 4.20 MWp flagship segment) |
| 2 | C4 corrosion premium for coastal-canal applied in LC v1.0? |
| 3 | Bird deterrent and anti-soiling coatings in LC v1.0 base or separate scope? |
| 4 | Portal-frame structural steel cost basis (marine-grade vs standard) |
| 5 | Transferability to BP and MTP Port (the other estates with sufficient canal width) |
H.4.5.5 Expected methodology canonical¶
[PENDING WP2] — but expected ranges: - LC T6W (coastal-canal, fully premium-loaded): $732–820 - BP T6W (canal, less coastal exposure): $720–800 - MTP Port T6W (port-canal, full marine premium): $850–1,000
H.4.6 BESS¶
BESS unit cost basis is $/kWh, not $/kWp — different methodology question. Per Part C C.6.4 and memory edit 16:
- LFP container: $175/kWh (April 2026 BNEF cost curve)
- Thermal management premium: +$10–15/kWh
- Soft costs: +5–10% on hardware
- Mid-life replacement Y12: $80–120/kWh
LC is no-BESS by design. BP and other EEC estates may deploy 5–6 MWh BESS.
WP2 BESS review is lighter scope: - Confirm LFP cost curve at $175/kWh against 2026 vendor quotes - Validate thermal management premium for tropical climate - Update mid-life replacement projection based on 2026 forward curve
[PENDING WP2 BESS validation]
H.5 Premium adjustments framework¶
The methodology supports premium adjustments to base typology unit cost. Annex H formalises which premiums apply per typology and per estate context.
H.5.1 C4 corrosion premium¶
Applies to: coastal estates (LC, MTP, MTP Port, Songkhla, Songkhla-S+Rubber City)
| Typology | C4 corrosion premium |
|---|---|
| T1 rooftop | +10–15% (BOS marine-grade) |
| T2 ground | +10–15% (BOS marine-grade) |
| T4A carport | +10–15% (structural steel marine-grade) |
| T4B-DC arterial | +10–15% (structural steel marine-grade) |
| T6W canal canopy | +15–20% (saltwater + humidity dual exposure) |
| BESS | +5% (container coatings; no major structural change) |
Per AUDIT-002 [PENDING WP2 verification]: confirm whether C4 corrosion is baked into LC v1.0 unit costs or represents an additional unmodeled adjustment.
H.5.2 Drilled-pier geotechnical fail premium¶
Applies to: T2, T4A, T4B-DC (any typology requiring drilled-pier foundations)
| Severity | Premium |
|---|---|
| Rock layer encountered | +10–15% (alternate foundation design) |
| Contaminated fill encountered | +15–25% (remediation + alternate design) |
| Unstable soils encountered | +10–20% (deeper piers + cap design) |
[PENDING per-estate Phase 0B geotechnical assessment]
H.5.3 Phased deployment premium¶
Applies to: T4B-DC arterial (single-mob conditional)
| Configuration | Premium |
|---|---|
| Single-mobilisation (whole arterial in one EPC) | 0% (LC baseline) |
| Phased (multi-RFQ over time) | +25% |
Methodology recommends: locking single-mob procurement strategy in EPC RFQ explicitly. If phased becomes necessary, document the +25% premium application.
H.5.4 Tenant negotiation premium¶
Applies to: tenant-attributed segments where ESA negotiation is required
| Tenant attribution | Premium |
|---|---|
| IEAT-direct (no tenant negotiation) | 0% (LC baseline for T1 admin / T4A carport) |
| Tenant-direct (negotiated tenant ESA) | +3–5% (legal, negotiation, possible aesthetic) |
| Multi-tenant ESA (segment serves multiple tenants) | +5–8% |
[PENDING WP4 quantification of tenant-direct premium application across estates]
H.5.5 Site-specific premiums¶
| Premium | Applies to |
|---|---|
| ACM remediation | T1 segments with ACM-flagged buildings; $15–25K/building |
| Roof reinforcement | T1 segments where ROOF-001 finds capacity marginal; $30–80K/building |
| Soil contamination remediation | T2 segments on industrially-contaminated parcels; $50–150K/parcel |
| MV substation extension | Any typology where parcel/segment is far from existing switchgear; $50–200K |
| Drainage system upgrade | T4A/T4B-DC/T6W where canopy drainage requires stormwater integration |
| Bridge clearance preservation | T4B-DC arterials with bridge crossings |
| Bird deterrent | T6W segments; $15–30K/segment |
| Anti-soiling coatings | T6W water-proximate segments; +$0.5–1.0/kWp capex + $0.3/kWp/yr opex |
These are applied on top of base typology unit cost, segment-by-segment.
H.6 Application to non-LC estates (transferability)¶
H.6.1 Transferability framework¶
For each non-LC estate in the pipeline, the methodology asks:
| # | Question |
|---|---|
| 1 | Which LC-specific drivers (H.3) apply or don't apply at this estate? |
| 2 | What estate-specific drivers (positive or negative) exist that LC lacks? |
| 3 | What is the resulting per-typology unit cost adjustment? |
| 4 | What confidence interval applies to the methodology canonical at this estate? |
H.6.2 Bangpoo (BP) — first non-LC estate¶
BP is currently in Phase 0 active per Part E § E.1.3. Transferability analysis [PENDING WP4]:
| Driver | LC | BP | Adjustment |
|---|---|---|---|
| EEC location | Yes (LC) | Yes (BP, EEC-adjacent) | None |
| Coastal C4 corrosion | Yes | Yes (Gulf-adjacent) | Same |
| Single-mob procurement | Yes (T4A, T4B-DC) | [PENDING — depends on BP arterial market] | TBD |
| Concrete-banked canals (T6W) | Yes | [PENDING — verify BP canal banks load-bearing] | TBD |
| IEAT-owned admin and factory | Yes (T1) | Yes | None |
| BTM-only deployment | Yes | No (BP has grid-export segments + BESS) | BESS scope expands at BP |
| Per-segment scale | Mid (LC envelope 34.59 MWp / 47 segs) | Larger (BP ~77 MWp / 60+ segs) | Possible scale advantage at BP (vendor specialisation) |
Expected BP per-typology canonical [PENDING WP4]: - T1: similar to LC (~\(412–500) — same drivers - T2: similar to LC (\)813) or slightly lower (larger parcels at BP) - T4A: similar to LC (\(742) or slightly lower (scale) - T4B-DC: similar to LC (\)700) if single-mob feasible - T6W: similar to LC ($732) pending canal-bank confirmation - BESS: $175/kWh + thermal premium (cost-curve standardised)
H.6.3 Land-lease estates (Lat Krabang, Bangplee, Lamphun)¶
Land-lease estates have a critical structural difference: T1 invalid (tenants own buildings, not IEAT). Annex H transferability is limited:
| Typology | Land-lease estate adjustment |
|---|---|
| T1 | Not applicable unless tenant signs direct ESA on rooftop |
| T2 | Limited IEAT-retained parcels; smaller envelope |
| T4A | Tenant-owned parking; tenant-direct ESA negotiation required |
| T4B-DC | Some IEAT-owned arterials may exist; check per estate |
| T6W | Possible if IEAT-owned canals exist |
| BESS | Standard |
Land-lease estates likely operate at smaller envelope per estate; transferability framework requires per-estate Phase 0 work.
[PENDING WP4 + Phase 0 per estate]
H.6.4 Map Ta Phut (MTP) — largest estate¶
MTP is structurally different: petrochemical-heavy, larger scale, more BESS-applicable. Transferability framework:
| Driver | LC | MTP | Adjustment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Estate scale | 34.59 MWp at LC | Likely 100+ MWp at MTP | Vendor specialisation at scale; possible -5–10% on T2/T4A |
| Coastal exposure | Yes | Yes (industrial-coastal) | Same C4 premium |
| Tenant industry mix | Mixed | Petrochemical-heavy (Tier-C industry) | Different per-tenant credit profile |
| BTM vs grid-export | BTM-only at LC | Likely mixed at MTP | BESS opportunity at MTP |
| Canal networks | Yes (5 T6W segs at LC) | Limited (mostly drainage) | T6W likely smaller at MTP |
[PENDING MTP Phase 0]
H.7 Annex H lock criteria¶
Annex H locks (and v1.1.0 unblocks) when all of the following are true:
| # | Criterion | Status |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | LC v1.0 baseline canonical confirmed (Section H.2) | ✅ Today |
| 2 | LC-specific cost driver framework documented (Section H.3) | ✅ Today |
| 3 | Premium adjustments framework documented (Section H.5) | ✅ Today |
| 4 | Per-typology engineering review (Section H.4) — WP2 deliverable | ⏳ WP2 weeks 1–4 |
| 5 | T1 anomaly resolved (one of scenarios A/B/C in H.4.1.5) | ⏳ WP2 |
| 6 | C4 corrosion verification (Section H.5.1) — AUDIT-002 closure | ⏳ WP2 |
| 7 | Methodology canonical $/kWp per typology with confidence intervals | ⏳ WP2 |
| 8 | Transferability analysis for BP (Section H.6.2) | ⏳ WP4 weeks 5–8 |
| 9 | Update Part C C.X.4 with WP2-validated methodology canonical | ⏳ Week 9–10 |
| 10 | Update LC model OPEX per AUDIT-016 (cross-cutting WP3) | ⏳ WP3 weeks 5–8 |
Items 1–3 are CLOSED today. Items 4–10 are gated by WP2 + WP3 + WP4. Target completion: 22 July 2026 (10 weeks from today).
H.8 Acknowledged Annex H gaps¶
- Engineering validation of all per-typology numbers is [PENDING WP2] — annex framework is locked but numerical content gated
- T1 anomaly diagnosis is the highest-priority WP2 item — three scenarios (A/B/C) in H.4.1.5; engineering review selects
- Single-mob procurement assumption for T4B-DC is conditional — phased premium +25% is the alternative; per-estate decision required
- Transferability to non-LC estates is framework-only — per-estate validation requires Phase 0 work + WP4 integration
- Bottom-up cost stack methodology (Annex L) is deferred to v1.2 — Annex H is top-down driver-based; bottom-up is the future complement
- Operational premiums (T6W bird deterrent, anti-soiling, biofouling) are captured but may need refinement — empirical data from BP and other T6W deployments will refine
- Per-segment vs per-typology canonical — Annex H is per-typology; per-segment refinement (estate-specific within typology) is v1.2 work
H.9 References¶
- NC-IS-LC-001 LC Investment Segment Register v1.0 — per-segment unit cost source
- NC-IC-LC-001 IC Paper v1.1 — LC EPC summary
- NC-FM-LC-001 LC Financial Model v1.0 — Construction tab build-up
- NC-MN-001-R3 v0.3 — AUDIT-040 and related items
- NC-MN-001-R3_v1_1_close.md — WP2 + WP4 scope and budget
- RETRACTION_NOTICE_Part_C_v1.1.0.md — Phase 3B retraction
- NC-METH-001 v1.1.0 Part A § A.4.3 — cost basis conventions
- NC-METH-001 v1.1.0 Part B § B.5 — CAPEX pipeline stage
- NC-METH-001 v1.1.0-revA Part C § C.X.4 — per-typology CAPEX formulas
- NC-METH-001 v1.1.0 Part D § D.2 — CAPEX build cross-cutting
- NC-METH-001 v1.1.0 Annex J — AUDIT-040 closure tracking (gating event)
- Memory edit 16 — solar $700–1,100/kWp canonical range (TOPCon 610Wp)
End of Annex H v1.1.0 framework lock.
Engineering validation pending: WP2 closure (Weeks 1–4) + WP4 integration (Weeks 5–8). Annex H is the gating event for v1.1.0 methodology lock at 22 July 2026.