Feasibility & load analysis
Interval data, demand and coincident peak behavior, and site constraints read before a system is sized — not after.
The seat that owns technical feasibility, system design, and delivery execution at TEK Energy — where a financial model either survives contact with a real site, or quietly stops being true.
TEK Energy advises and delivers for commercial and institutional owners across battery energy storage, EV charging, commercial solar, and energy procurement. Underneath every projected saving sits an engineering claim: that the load profile is what the interval data says it is, that the site can take the equipment, that the utility will interconnect it on the assumed schedule, and that the system will still perform to spec in year ten.
The VP, Engineering owns those claims. The seat covers technical due diligence and system design — load and interval analysis, sizing, controls and dispatch strategy, and code compliance; delivery engineering — permitting, interconnection, EPC scope and contractor oversight, commissioning and QA/QC; and performance engineering — the monitoring, warranty enforcement, and O&M program design that keep an asset producing what it was underwritten to produce.
It is a commercial seat as much as a technical one. TEK's position is that most energy projects don't fail on technology — they stall in the gap between what was promised and what gets delivered. On the engineering side, that gap looks like a system sized off a monthly bill instead of interval data, an interconnection study nobody sequenced, a degradation curve nobody verified, and a commissioning test nobody witnessed. Closing it is the mandate.
Interval and load analysis, site and electrical assessment, system sizing and configuration, and controls and dispatch strategy across BESS, solar, and EV charging. Sets the engineering basis of design the financial model is built on — including the constraints that disqualify a site before money is spent on it.
Utility interconnection applications and study sequencing, permitting and authority-having-jurisdiction review, code and safety compliance, EPC scope definition and contractor oversight, and QA/QC through construction and commissioning. Owns the schedule risk that lives between an executed contract and an energized asset.
Commissioning verification, performance monitoring and fault diagnosis, warranty and performance-guarantee enforcement against manufacturers and contractors, and preventive and corrective maintenance program design — so drift between modeled and actual output is caught in weeks, not at annual reconciliation.
Interval data, demand and coincident peak behavior, and site constraints read before a system is sized — not after.
Sizing, configuration, and controls strategy for BESS, solar, and EV charging matched to the tariff and duty cycle the asset will actually run.
Utility study sequencing, application quality, and AHJ review managed as schedule risk, because that is what they are.
Electrical, fire, and equipment standards designed in from the start — siting, clearances, and testing evidence that hold up at inspection.
Scope written so it can be enforced, contractors held to it, and commissioning witnessed against the design basis before acceptance.
Monitoring, warranty administration, and maintenance programs that keep production, availability, and degradation inside the underwritten case.
An energy project is a promise about physics and schedule. This seat exists so that promise is tested on paper, at the utility, and on site — before an owner has to discover it was optimistic.
If you are weighing a storage, solar, or EV charging project and want the engineering pressure-tested before it is priced, start a conversation below.