When commercial energy projects stall, it’s rarely because someone made a bad decision. More often, no one made a decision at all. Emails go unanswered. Proposals arrive in different formats. Internal teams struggle to compare options. Weeks turn into months. Eventually, the project fades into the background. This is the hidden cost of ad hoc energy procurement, and it’s far more expensive than it looks.

🧩 What ad hoc procurement looks like in practice

Most buyers don’t choose ad hoc procurement. They fall into it. A developer reaches out with an offer. A consultant runs a feasibility study. Someone forwards an intro. Each step feels reasonable in isolation. But without a structured process, small inefficiencies stack up quickly.

Inconsistent scopes

Every vendor proposes something slightly different. Different assumptions, different contract terms, different timelines. Comparing options becomes subjective and risky.

Slow internal coordination

Sustainability, asset management, procurement, finance, and operations all weigh in — often at different times and with different priorities. Without structure, alignment drags.

Decision fatigue

When nothing is standardized, every project requires bespoke analysis and debate. Teams burn time just figuring out how to decide. None of this shows up in a financial model. But it has real consequences.

⏳ Time is the most expensive input

The most underestimated cost in energy procurement is time. Not just calendar time, but attention.

Each stalled project:

  • Consumes internal bandwidth

  • Erodes confidence

  • Reduces urgency

  • Makes the next project harder to restart

Over time, teams stop pushing. Energy projects become “important, but not urgent.” And nothing moves.

🧠 Why “free” feasibility isn’t free

Feasibility studies are often positioned as a low-risk first step. And on their own, they’re useful. The problem is what happens next.

Without a clear path to procurement and execution, feasibility becomes a cul-de-sac. The same analysis gets repeated. Assumptions drift. Context is lost. New stakeholders ask new questions. What looks free on paper becomes expensive in practice.

⚙️ Process discipline creates leverage

The most successful portfolio owners don’t win by finding better projects. They win by running better processes.

Structured procurement:

  • Reduces internal debate

  • Makes comparisons objective

  • Improves vendor engagement

  • Surfaces execution risk earlier

  • Preserves momentum

This isn’t bureaucracy. It’s leverage. When process is clear, decisions get easier — and outcomes improve.

🔁 Why this matters at portfolio scale

Ad hoc procurement might limp along for one or two projects. It breaks completely at scale.

Portfolios need:

  • Standardized scopes

  • Repeatable evaluation

  • Transparent competition

  • Clear decision criteria

Without those, every project feels like starting over.

 

Product Mocks (14)-1

When every project is evaluated differently, decisions slow down. Standardized portfolio views like the ones you can get via the Station A App reduce friction and preserve momentum.

🚦 The real cost of doing nothing

The biggest cost of ad hoc procurement isn’t overpaying for a project. It’s not building projects at all. Missed incentives. Lost learning. Delayed emissions reductions. Repeated false starts. For organizations serious about decarbonization, that cost adds up quickly.

If energy procurement feels slower and harder than it should, the issue may not be the projects, it may be the process.

Talk to us