Skip to main content

Who owns the plant in a third-party or ESCO solar model?

In a third party arrangement the roof is yours and the plant is not. Where the title sits at each stage, what happens when the term ends, and the points to settle before the agreement is signed.

In a third party or ESCO arrangement, the roof belongs to the building owner and the plant does not. That is the whole point of the model: somebody else finds the capital, carries the technical risk and is repaid out of the energy the plant produces. It works well when the ownership position is written down clearly at every stage. It goes wrong when the parties discover, several years in, that they had different assumptions about who owns what.

Where the title sits, stage by stage

  1. During construction. Equipment is normally the property of the developer or its financier until commissioning, and is insured by them. The building owner is granting site access, not taking delivery. If any payment is made in advance, say explicitly whether title passes on payment or on commissioning, because that single sentence decides who bears the loss if a container of modules is damaged in transit.
  2. At commissioning. The plant becomes an operating asset owned by the developer, sitting on premises owned by somebody else. This is the position that needs a written right to occupy the roof: a licence or lease for the term, with defined access rights for operation and maintenance.
  3. Through the term. The developer owns and maintains the plant. The building owner buys the energy it produces under the tariff mechanism in the agreement, or pays a fixed periodic charge under a lease. The plant should appear on the developer's asset register and its insurance, and should be clearly identified as not belonging to the building.
  4. At the end of the term. Title either transfers to the building owner, usually at a nominal or pre agreed value, or the developer removes the plant and reinstates the roof, or the parties extend. All three are legitimate. What is not legitimate is an agreement that does not say which one applies.

The net metering agreement stays in your name

This is the detail that most often surprises both sides in Bangladesh. The electricity connection belongs to the consumer, and the net metering arrangement is between the utility and that consumer. The developer who owns the hardware is not the utility's counterparty.

Practically, that means the building owner signs the net metering agreement and carries the obligations in it, for a plant it does not own and does not operate. The contract between owner and developer has to bridge that gap: who prepares and submits the application, who is responsible if the plant breaches a condition of the agreement, who deals with the utility on metering disputes, and what happens to the arrangement if the developer walks away. Leaving it unsaid puts the regulatory obligation on the party with the least control over the equipment.

What happens when the term ends

A plant handed over at the end of a long term is not a new plant. It has been generating for most of its warranted life, the inverters have very likely been replaced at least once, and the monitoring platform may be a subscription that stops when the developer stops paying for it.

So specify the handover condition rather than only the handover date. A defined test at transfer, comparing measured output against irradiance, tells you what you are receiving. Ask also for the as built drawings, the operation and maintenance history, remaining warranty documents assigned in your name, spare parts, and the monitoring system in a form that keeps working after the transfer. And agree who removes the plant and repairs the roof if you decline to take it, because that cost is real and it belongs to whoever the contract says it belongs to.

Settle these before signing

Back to all Insights