Supply chain reality check for electrolyser EPC schedules
Electrolyser projects are no longer constrained by design alone. The critical path runs through long-lead equipment, factory acceptance tests, and delivery windows that were not in early feasibility schedules. Developers who treat procurement as a schedule risk management discipline are the ones keeping commissioning on track.
Need a delivery risk review? Share your equipment list and we will map long-lead exposure, schedule buffers, and mitigation steps.
We respond within one business day.
Contact our expertsWhat is really on the critical path
Electrolyser stacks, transformers, rectifiers, and high-pressure compressors are the most frequent delay drivers. Each has its own supply chain dependencies and test requirements. A schedule without vendor slot confirmation is no longer credible.
Factory acceptance is now a milestone
FAT windows are oversubscribed. If you miss a slot, downstream commissioning activity can slip by months. Build FAT timing into your cash flow model and align payment schedules accordingly.
Protecting the commissioning sequence
Sequence construction and commissioning around what is actually deliverable. Pre-commission balance-of-plant systems, lock in temporary utilities, and plan for phased energisation if the final stack delivery is late.
How to keep LCOH assumptions defensible
- Model delay scenarios with extended owner's costs and late revenue.
- Include schedule contingency for interconnection and commissioning.
- Align EPC incentives with delivery milestones and penalties.
- Use supplier diversity to reduce single-vendor dependency.
Key takeaways
- Long-lead equipment now defines commissioning timelines.
- FAT slots should be treated as critical commercial milestones.
- Delay scenarios must be explicit in cash flow and LCOH models.