Cooperation talks rarely fail on whether to build; they fail on who funds it, who runs it, and how the earnings split. No model is universally better - only better or worse for your budget, your staffing and your holding horizon. The tool below puts all three on one sheet with your own numbers.
Step 1 - your project data
Unsure? Keep the defaults - the relative comparison is the point. Gross margin = revenue minus electricity minus O&M; it is the sharing base, so keep it apart from revenue.
Step 2 - two preferences
Step 3 - comparison
Suggested model: — (indicative only; the signed agreement governs). Self-procurement carries O&M at 3% of investment per year; in share-out and joint modes O&M sits with us; joint assumes 50/50 capital and 50/50 revenue.
| Mode | Your first outlay | Annual net to you | Cumulative net over term | Return on your capital |
|---|
Counter-intuitive but true: joint investment and self-procurement show almost the same return on capital - joint just halves the cash you tie up. What actually differs is who handles faults, complaints and inspections.
The three models in essence
Self-procurement, self-management
The property funds everything, owns the devices, keeps every yuan of revenue - and owns every fault, complaint and inspection too. We deliver construction and platform access. Highest long-term return; heaviest management burden. Fits budget-rich properties with staff to run things and a long holding intent.
Operator investment, revenue share
We fund devices, construction, O&M and the platform; the property shares monthly gross margin at a fixed ratio. Zero outlay, zero device risk, no duty roster - the trade-off is a lower long-run total than self-procurement. The mainstream choice for residential communities, and the reason most Yantai properties work with us.
Joint investment
Both sides fund half; revenue splits by capital share; O&M mostly sits with us. The property controls first-outlay while earning more than pure share-out, and keeps a voice in decisions - at the price of shared project risk and a thicker contract. Fits units with partial budget and real appetite for involvement.
Three clauses that must be in the contract
- The sharing base. It must be gross margin (revenue - electricity - O&M), never revenue. Revenue is mostly a pass-through to the grid; sharing on it means sharing costs as profit - the most common trap in the trade.
- Response times. Hours to respond, hours to attend, and what happens after missed deadlines - written as testable clauses, not as "timely repair".
- Who owns the devices at term end. Ownership, renewal and its conditions, spelled out before signing - so nobody discovers late that "the equipment is ours".
Model maths: self-procurement carries O&M at 3% of investment per year; share-out and joint carry O&M on our side; joint assumes 50/50 capital and 50/50 revenue. All static - no cost of capital, taxes, insurance or renewals. The signed contract governs.
About these results: the tools compute ideal-condition, static estimates from public industry parameters and the values you enter, for early communication, option comparison and feasibility screening only. They are not investment advice, not a promise of return, not a quotation. Actual investment, revenue and payback depend on site conditions, grid capacity, equipment selection, real utilisation, tariff and service-fee policy, O&M quality and sharing terms, and may differ substantially. Entrepreneurship involves risk; decisions should rest on survey data, formal contracts and real operations. The company accepts no investment risk for decisions made on these figures.