Solar ROI for Pharmaceutical Facility 2026: Cost, Payback and Financing Guide

Pharmaceutical manufacturing is one of the most electricity-intensive industries per square metre. A typical plant has an energy use intensity of roughly 1,210 kBtu per square foot per year. That equals about 3,819 kWh per square metre, according to EPA ENERGY STAR pharmaceutical benchmarking data. That is roughly 14 times the intensity of a modern commercial office building. HVAC systems alone can account for 50 to 80 percent of site consumption because cleanrooms demand continuous filtered, conditioned and pressurised air.

That energy profile makes pharmaceutical facilities unusually good candidates for behind-the-meter solar. The load is large, continuous, expensive and daytime-peaking. In 2026, commercial electricity rates averaged 13.51 cents per kWh in April, up 4.8 percent year over year, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. In California, New Jersey, Massachusetts and other pharma-heavy states, large commercial users regularly pay more than 18 cents per kWh. Solar offers a direct hedge.

This guide is written for facility managers, energy procurement teams, sustainability officers and solar EPCs bidding on pharma assets. It explains how to calculate solar ROI for a pharmaceutical facility, what system sizing and financing assumptions matter, and where the numbers can go wrong. We use 2026 market data, named sources and a worked example you can replicate.

If you are modeling a portfolio of facilities or a single plant, use SurgePV’s cloud solar design platform. It imports interval data, runs shadow analysis, and models commercial solar tariffs, demand charges and incentive stacks in one workflow.

In this guide:

• Why pharmaceutical solar ROI is different from typical commercial solar
• How much energy a pharmaceutical solar system produces
• What a pharmaceutical solar system costs in 2026
• The full 2026 incentive stack: ITC, MACRS, USDA REAP and state programs
• Ownership, loan, PPA and lease trade-offs for pharma
• A worked ROI example for a 2.5 MW pharmaceutical solar system
• Pharma-specific value streams beyond kWh savings
• Common mistakes that kill pharmaceutical solar returns
• When pharmaceutical solar does not make sense
• FAQ with 10 pharmaceutical solar ROI questions

Why Pharmaceutical Solar ROI Is Different

A pharmaceutical facility is not a warehouse with extra air conditioning. It is a validated environment where temperature, humidity, pressure differential and particle count must stay inside tight bands around the clock. Those requirements change every part of the ROI calculation.

The first difference is load shape. Cleanroom HVAC runs continuously. Air-change rates range from 30 per hour for ISO 8 spaces to 600 per hour for ISO 5 Grade A suites, according to Cleanroom Technology. That creates a flat daytime baseload that aligns well with solar output. Process equipment such as granulators, tablet presses, autoclaves and packaging lines typically run two or three shifts. The result is high self-consumption, often 70 to 90 percent without storage.

The second difference is energy intensity. The average pharmaceutical plant uses about 3,819 kWh per square metre per year. A modern office building uses roughly 257 kWh per square metre, according to Mantis Innovation. Even a modest 200,000 square foot plant can consume 7,000 MWh per year. A large campus can use 50,000 MWh or more. The project is large enough to capture installer economies of scale.

The third difference is bill structure. Pharmaceutical facilities usually pay industrial or large commercial tariffs with three major components:

• Energy charges: the per-kWh rate for electricity consumed
• Demand charges: a monthly fee based on the highest 15-minute average kW
• Transmission and distribution charges: fees for moving power across the grid

Behind-the-meter solar avoids all three on the energy it produces. A remote PPA only avoids the energy charge. That is why onsite solar typically delivers 2 to 3 times more financial value per kWh than a utility-scale PPA for this load profile.

The fourth difference is regulatory overlay. Any electrical change at a GMP facility must pass change control. Roof work above a cleanroom requires structural and membrane review. Inverters must meet power-quality standards to avoid harmonics that can disrupt lab instruments and HVAC controls. These steps add cost but are non-negotiable.

For a deeper look at the design side, read our guide to solar design for pharmaceutical facility. The structural and electrical logic is the same, even though the ROI conversation adds finance-specific layers.

How Much Energy a Pharmaceutical Solar System Produces

A credible ROI model starts with accurate production. Pharmaceutical solar output depends on system size, module efficiency, local solar resource, and shading from exhaust stacks, HVAC equipment or neighbouring buildings.

A standard flat commercial roof accommodates roughly 8 to 12 watts of DC capacity per square foot, depending on row spacing and structural limits. A 10-acre parcel can host roughly 1.5 to 2.5 MW of ground-mount solar. A 300,000 square foot manufacturing roof can host 1.5 to 3 MW, assuming the structure can carry the load.

Annual production per installed kilowatt varies by location:

• Phoenix, Arizona: 1,650 to 1,750 kWh/kW/year
• Los Angeles, California: 1,450 to 1,550 kWh/kW/year
• Dallas, Texas: 1,400 to 1,500 kWh/kW/year
• Newark, New Jersey: 1,250 to 1,350 kWh/kW/year
• Boston, Massachusetts: 1,200 to 1,300 kWh/kW/year
• Seattle, Washington: 950 to 1,050 kWh/kW/year

A 2 MW rooftop system in New Jersey therefore produces roughly 2.5 million to 2.7 million kWh per year. The same system in Phoenix produces roughly 3.3 million to 3.5 million kWh per year. These numbers assume standard monofacial modules, a 1.5 performance ratio, and minimal shading.

Self-consumption is the critical financial variable. If the array serves a plant with continuous cleanroom HVAC, 75 to 90 percent of generation may be used on site. If the array exports most of its generation under a net-billing program, the effective value of those kilowatt-hours drops sharply. A good feasibility study models hourly load against hourly generation, not annual totals alone.

For help maximising on-site use, see our guide to commercial solar self-consumption optimization.

What a Pharmaceutical Solar System Costs in 2026

A credible ROI model starts with an accurate installed cost. The table below blends the latest benchmark data for commercial solar projects.

For planning, use $1.55 to $1.85 per watt DC for a standard pharmaceutical rooftop project. Carport canopies or projects requiring significant roof reinforcement land at $2.00 to $2.50 per watt DC. The pharma-specific adders are the reason these projects can cost 10 to 20 percent more than a generic commercial rooftop of the same size.

Operating costs are low but persistent. Budget $10 to $15 per kW per year for O&M, plus property insurance and an inverter replacement reserve. Over 25 years, these costs are typically 5 to 10 percent of the upfront capital cost. Ignoring them makes payback look shorter than it really is.

For a deeper sector cost breakdown, see our guide on solar installation cost breakdown.

The Full 2026 Incentive Stack

Federal incentives remain the largest driver of pharmaceutical solar ROI in 2026, though the rules have tightened.

The Section 48E Clean Electricity Investment Credit provides a 30 percent tax credit for qualifying commercial solar. Projects under 1 MW AC automatically receive the full rate. Projects at or above 1 MW must meet prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements, according to IRS Business Energy Investment Tax Credit guidance.

Bonus credits can raise the effective credit above 30 percent:

• Domestic content bonus: up to 10 percent additional credit for projects using U.S.-made steel, iron and manufactured products.
• Energy community bonus: up to 10 percent additional credit for projects located in census tracts tied to fossil fuel employment or brownfield sites.
• Low-income bonus: up to 10 or 20 percent additional credit for qualified projects under 5 MWac, allocated competitively.

For most pharmaceutical projects, the base 30 percent ITC is the realistic starting point. Bonus credits require documentation and sometimes competitive allocation, so do not model them until eligibility is confirmed.

MACRS depreciation is the second major federal benefit. Commercial solar qualifies for five-year accelerated depreciation. In 2026, 40 percent bonus depreciation applies to the depreciable basis. The combination of ITC and MACRS can recover 45 to 55 percent of project cost in the first two years for a profitable taxpayer.

USDA REAP grants can be a third source of funding for rural pharmaceutical facilities. The Rural Energy for America Program covers up to 50 percent of eligible project costs in grant form. The remainder is available through loan guarantees, according to the USDA REAP program page.

State and utility incentives vary widely. California, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York have strong programs. Some states offer solar renewable energy certificates or clean energy credits. The best place to check current programs is the Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency.

Net metering and net billing rules matter as much as incentives. Full retail net metering lets exported kilowatt-hours offset future usage at the retail rate. Net billing pays only avoided-cost or wholesale rates for exports. In net-billing markets, the financial case depends on self-consumption, not total production alone.

Ownership, Loan, PPA and Lease Trade-offs

The financing structure changes the ROI profile as much as the hardware or tariff.

Cash purchase captures the full 30 percent ITC, MACRS depreciation and all long-term savings. It produces the highest lifetime ROI and the simplest ownership structure. The drawback is capital deployment and balance sheet impact. For a 2 MW pharmaceutical solar system at $1.70/Wdc, cash purchase requires roughly $3.4 million before incentives and roughly $2.38 million after the ITC.

Loan financing preserves some cash and still lets the owner capture tax benefits. A 70 percent loan at 6 to 8 percent interest over 10 years typically produces a higher return on equity than an all-cash deal. The borrower earns returns on the full system while only putting down 30 percent. The trade-off is interest expense and debt service coverage requirements.

Power purchase agreement (PPA) transfers ownership, tax benefits and O&M risk to an investor. The host pays a fixed rate per kilowatt-hour, usually 10 to 30 percent below the utility rate, with a 2 to 3 percent annual escalator. A PPA preserves capital and transfers risk but produces lower lifetime savings than ownership. It works well for facilities with limited tax appetite or capital constraints.

Operating lease is similar to a PPA in cash-flow profile but usually structured as a lease payment rather than a per-kilowatt-hour charge. Leases are less common for commercial solar today because they complicate the ITC transfer and often produce weaker returns than well-structured PPAs.

The right choice depends on tax appetite, balance sheet capacity and whether the facility operator can use the ITC directly. Many not-for-profit or municipal facilities cannot, which makes PPAs the practical choice.

See our glossary entry on solar PPAs for a fuller explanation of contract structures.

Worked ROI Example: 2.5 MW Pharmaceutical Solar System

Here is a fully transparent example you can replicate. The inputs are intentionally middle-of-the-road so you can substitute your own numbers.

Project assumptions:

• Location: New Jersey metro
• Facility size: 250,000 square feet
• Annual electricity use: 12,000 MWh
• Peak demand: 2,000 kW
• System size: 2,500 kW DC
• Specific yield: 1,300 kWh/kW/year
• Annual production: 3,250,000 kWh
• Self-consumption rate: 80% against cleanroom and process loads
• Exported generation: 20%
• Commercial electricity rate: $0.16/kWh
• Export credit rate: $0.06/kWh
• Installed cost: $1.70/Wdc
• Federal ITC: 30%
• MACRS depreciation: 5-year schedule with 40% bonus
• Annual O&M: $12/kW-year
• Analysis period: 25 years

Upfront cost:

2,500 kW × $1.70/Wdc = $4,250,000

Less 30% ITC = $1,275,000

Net capital after ITC = $2,975,000

First-year savings:

• Self-consumed: 3,250,000 kWh × 80% × $0.16 = $416,000
• Exported: 3,250,000 kWh × 20% × $0.06 = $39,000
• Demand charge reduction: 150 kW × $15/kW/month × 12 = $27,000
• Gross energy and demand value = $482,000
• Less O&M: 2,500 kW × $12 = $30,000
• Net first-year savings = $452,000

Simple payback:

$2,975,000 ÷ $452,000 = 6.6 years

That is before MACRS. MACRS depreciation has a present value of roughly $650,000 to $750,000 for a 21 percent taxpayer. That drops the effective net cost to roughly $2.23 million to $2.33 million. After-tax payback then falls to roughly 4.9 to 5.2 years.

IRR and NPV:

Assuming 3 percent annual electricity rate escalation, 0.5 percent annual production degradation and a 7 percent discount rate, the unlevered IRR lands between 13 and 17 percent. A leveraged deal with 30 percent equity and a 7 percent loan typically pushes equity IRR into the 18 to 24 percent range.

This example assumes the array serves on-site loads. If the project exports 75 percent of generation instead of self-consuming 80 percent, first-year savings drop to roughly $220,000. Simple payback then stretches beyond 13 years. That is why load matching is everything in pharmaceutical solar.

The generation and financial tool in SurgePV models this exact cash flow including 8760-hour production, BESS dispatch and tariff structures.

The Demand Charge Advantage

Demand charges are the least understood and most valuable part of pharmaceutical solar economics. A facility’s monthly peak often occurs during a hot afternoon when cleanroom HVAC, chillers and process load align. Solar production also peaks at midday. The overlap means solar directly reduces the peak kW that sets the demand charge.

A battery adds precision. It can discharge during the exact 15-minute interval when the facility hits its monthly peak, shaving hundreds of kilowatts off the billed demand. At $15 per kW per month, shaving 200 kW saves $36,000 per year. At $25 per kW per month, the same battery saves $60,000 per year.

This is why a battery can pay for itself on demand-charge savings alone in high-demand-charge markets. A 1 MWh battery that shaves 250 kW of peak for four hours per day pays back in roughly 5 to 7 years.

The mistake many models make is to ignore demand charges entirely or to assume solar production perfectly tracks the peak. It does not. Clouds, maintenance and load variation mean a battery is usually needed to capture the full demand-charge value. For more detail, see our guide to demand charges.

Battery Storage and Its Impact on ROI

Battery storage has become a standard companion to pharmaceutical solar. Pack prices for stationary lithium iron phosphate systems fell to roughly $70 per kWh at the cell level in 2025, according to BloombergNEF. Fully installed systems now sit at $250 to $400 per kWh. That makes storage a realistic addition for facilities with the right tariff structure.

A battery improves solar ROI in four ways:

1. Time-shift: store midday solar surplus and discharge during evening peak rates
2. Peak shave: cut the highest 15-minute kW each month
3. Self-consumption: increase the percentage of solar consumed onsite instead of exported at low value
4. Ride-through: bridge the seconds between grid loss and generator start for critical GMP loads

In the New Jersey example, adding a 500 kW / 2 MWh battery might increase the annual savings by roughly $45,000 in demand-charge reduction and $25,000 in time-of-use arbitrage. The battery might add $700,000 to CapEx but improve project NPV by roughly $400,000 to $600,000. The solar-plus-storage IRR is typically 2 to 4 percentage points higher than solar alone when demand charges are high.

The right battery size depends on tariff structure as much as on solar capacity. A facility with high demand charges and a wide time-of-use spread justifies a larger battery. A facility with flat rates and low demand charges may not need storage at all.

Federal Tax Credits and Depreciation in 2026

The US federal incentives for commercial solar remain attractive in 2026, though some deadlines are approaching.

Investment Tax Credit. Solar placed in service in 2026 qualifies for a 30 percent tax credit under Section 48E. Projects under 1 MW AC automatically receive the full rate. Projects at or above 1 MW must meet prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements. Projects that meet domestic content requirements or are located in energy communities can add 10 percentage points each.

MACRS depreciation. Commercial solar qualifies for five-year MACRS. In 2026, 40 percent bonus depreciation applies to the depreciable basis. The combination of ITC and MACRS can recover 45 to 55 percent of project cost in the first two years for a profitable taxpayer.

Safe harbor. The full 30 percent ITC for projects beginning construction before certain deadlines remains available. Projects should begin construction in 2026 to preserve the current rate. After 2026, the base credit is scheduled to step down for projects that do not meet domestic content or labor requirements.

These incentives transform marginal projects into strong ones. In the New Jersey example, the post-incentive payback was roughly 5 years versus roughly 9 years without incentives. For a CFO, the tax stack is often the deciding factor between proceeding and deferring.

Pharma-Specific Revenue Streams and Value Beyond kWh

Pharmaceutical solar delivers value that a standard commercial rooftop project cannot replicate.

Scope 2 emissions reduction. Solar generation directly reduces reported Scope 2 emissions. A 2.5 MW system producing 3.25 GWh per year avoids roughly 1,100 to 1,400 metric tons of CO₂ annually, depending on the grid emission factor. That reduction has real value in sustainability-linked financing, customer audits and ESG reporting.

Resilience for critical loads. Solar paired with battery storage can keep essential HVAC controls, emergency lighting and selected quality-control systems online during brief grid outages. It does not replace a generator for multi-day outages, but it can ride through the seconds to minutes needed for generator start-up.

Carport and EV charging. Pharmaceutical campuses often have large parking lots. Solar carports generate power while shading staff vehicles and creating infrastructure for EV charging. A 500-space parking lot can host 1 to 1.5 MW depending on bay spacing.

Green bonds and sustainability-linked loans. Facilities with verified renewable generation can access lower-cost capital through green financing instruments. The savings are harder to quantify upfront but increasingly material for large pharma balance sheets.

When Pharmaceutical Solar ROI Falls Short

Solar ROI is not universally strong. There are cases where the business case does not clear internal hurdle rates, and recognizing them early saves wasted engineering effort.

Low electricity rates and weak demand charges. Markets with commercial rates below $0.10 per kWh and demand charges below $10 per kW per month do not produce enough savings. The avoided-cost spread is too narrow.

Short facility tenure. A solar project returns most of its value after year 7. If the facility lease expires in year 5, or if the operator plans to consolidate production elsewhere, the asset can become stranded. Ownership only works when the load and the asset stay together.

Land or rooftop constraints. A 5 MW array needs 20 to 30 acres for ground-mount or roughly 500,000 square feet of usable roof. Many urban plants simply do not have it. Rooftop solar on a typical plant provides 500 kW to 2 MW, useful but insufficient for majority solar fractions.

Restrictive grid export rules. Some utilities limit or prohibit exporting surplus solar to the grid. That forces either strict self-consumption sizing or costly curtailment. An interconnection study that reveals zero export rights can change a project’s economics from attractive to marginal.

High interconnection upgrade costs. Behind-the-meter solar avoids transmission queues, but it does not always avoid distribution upgrades. A project that requires a new substation or feeder rebuild can see interconnection costs add $0.20 to $0.50 per Wdc.

The honest takeaway is that pharmaceutical solar is a high-ROI option in the right markets, not a universal solution. The first filter is always the same: high retail rates, strong solar resource, available roof or land, and a long-term facility commitment.

Common ROI Mistakes Pharmaceutical Buyers Make

Even experienced operators make the same modeling errors. Each one can shift the IRR by several percentage points.

Using a flat avoided $/kWh. This is the most common mistake. Solar value in a pharmaceutical facility comes from energy savings, demand-charge reduction and avoided T&D fees. A model that values production at only the energy rate understates value by 15 to 30 percent.

Overstating self-consumption. Without an 8760-hour simulation, it is easy to assume 100 percent of solar production is used onsite. In reality, maintenance windows, batch cycles and cloud events create surplus that may be exported at low value or curtailed.

Ignoring curtailment. Local distribution feeders sometimes cannot absorb surplus solar during low-load weekends. A project that models no curtailment can miss tens of thousands of dollars in first-year revenue.

Using the wrong discount rate. A 5 to 7 year payback project is not low risk. Pharmaceutical solar carries production, tariff, equipment and interconnection risks. Use a discount rate that reflects project risk, not the company’s weighted average cost of capital.

Forgetting inverter replacement. Central inverters typically need replacement in year 12 to 15. Budget $0.15 to $0.25 per watt in present-value terms. Models that ignore this reserve show inflated IRR.

Misapplying the ITC. Storage must meet specific rules to qualify for the standalone ITC. Co-located storage paired with solar usually qualifies, but the documentation matters. Engage a tax advisor early.

The solar design software used for the initial study should model all of these variables together. Single-purpose calculators that ignore demand charges or storage dispatch will produce misleading ROI figures.

Conclusion

Solar ROI for pharmaceutical facilities in 2026 is unusually strong. The load profile, bill structure and asset life of a drug manufacturing plant align well with what solar and storage do best. Behind-the-meter projects in high-tariff markets can pay back in 4 to 6 years and generate IRRs above 15 percent after federal incentives. Even conservative markets deliver 6 to 9 year paybacks and double-digit IRRs.

The key is to model the full value stack: energy savings, demand-charge reduction, avoided T&D fees, tax credits and depreciation. A model that captures only the energy rate will understate returns and may cause a valuable project to be rejected.

If you are evaluating solar for a pharmaceutical facility, the next steps are:

• Pull 12 months of 15-minute interval load data and identify your true peak kW and energy charges
• Run a solar plus storage feasibility study at 25, 40 and 60 percent solar offset targets
• Compare ownership, PPA and lease structures against your tax appetite and balance sheet

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a typical solar ROI for a pharmaceutical facility in 2026?

Behind-the-meter pharmaceutical solar in the US typically delivers a 12 to 18 percent unlevered IRR. Simple payback is 4 to 7 years after the 30 percent federal ITC. The range depends on local commercial electricity rates, demand charges, solar resource, cleanroom load shape, and whether battery storage is added. Facilities with industrial rates above $0.12 per kWh and demand charges above $12 per kW per month usually land at the better end of the range.

Why is solar ROI strong for pharmaceutical facilities?

Pharmaceutical facilities have high, continuous electricity loads driven by cleanroom HVAC, which often consumes 50 to 80 percent of site energy. That load runs during the same hours solar produces the most power, so self-consumption rates reach 70 to 90 percent. High self-consumption means most solar kilowatt-hours avoid the full retail rate, plus demand charges and time-of-use peaks. The 30 percent federal ITC and MACRS depreciation further improve returns.

How much does a pharmaceutical solar system cost?

As of mid-2026, commercial rooftop solar for pharmaceutical facilities costs roughly $1.55 to $1.85 per watt DC before incentives. Added costs for structural review, membrane warranty coordination, low-THD inverter specification and GMP documentation can add $0.10 to $0.30 per watt. A 2 MW pharmaceutical solar system therefore lands between $3.1 million and $3.7 million before the ITC. Battery storage adds $250 to $400 per kilowatt-hour installed.

Should a pharmaceutical facility buy, lease or sign a PPA for solar?

Direct ownership captures the 30 percent federal ITC, MACRS depreciation, and all long-term savings. It produces the highest lifetime ROI but requires capital and tax appetite. A behind-the-meter PPA preserves cash, fixes a long-term energy rate, and transfers O&M risk, but passes tax benefits to the investor. A solar lease is simplest but usually the most expensive over 20 years. Choose ownership if the balance sheet supports it; choose a PPA if capital is constrained or the facility is tax-exempt.

What federal incentives apply to pharmaceutical solar in 2026?

The Section 48E Clean Electricity Investment Credit provides a 30 percent tax credit for qualifying commercial solar placed in service in 2026. Projects under 1 MW AC automatically receive the full rate; larger projects must meet prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements. Bonus credits for domestic content and energy communities can add 10 percentage points each. MACRS depreciation allows 40 percent bonus depreciation in 2026, with the remainder over five years. Rural facilities may also qualify for USDA REAP grants.

How do demand charges affect pharmaceutical solar economics?

Industrial demand charges are billed on the highest 15-minute average kW each month and commonly range from $10 to $25 per kW per month. Because cleanroom HVAC peaks on hot summer afternoons, solar generation often coincides with the facility’s highest draw. A battery can discharge during the exact peak interval, shaving hundreds of kilowatts off the billed demand. Ignoring demand charges in a solar ROI model understates value by 15 to 30 percent.

Can battery storage improve pharmaceutical solar ROI?

Yes. A battery shifts midday solar surplus into evening peak periods, reduces demand charges, and increases self-consumption. In pharmaceutical facilities, it also provides short-duration ride-through for critical GMP loads. The business case is strongest where demand charges exceed $15 per kW per month or where time-of-use spreads are wide. Storage typically raises project IRR by 2 to 4 percentage points when the tariff structure supports it.

What is the biggest mistake when modeling pharmaceutical solar ROI?

The most common mistake is valuing solar production at a flat avoided $/kWh. Pharmaceutical solar value comes from three streams: energy charge reduction, demand charge reduction, and avoided transmission and distribution fees. A model that uses only the energy rate understates value and produces an artificially long payback. The second biggest mistake is overstating self-consumption without an 8760-hour load and production simulation.

When does pharmaceutical solar not make financial sense?

Pharmaceutical solar struggles in several conditions. These include commercial rates under $0.10 per kWh, low demand charges, an old or structurally limited roof, and export compensation near wholesale. A facility lease that ends before year 10 is another problem. Sites with frequent shading from exhaust stacks or neighboring structures also see weaker returns. In those cases, focus on energy efficiency first or consider a remote PPA for sustainability compliance.

How long does a pharmaceutical solar project take from feasibility to commissioning?

A typical pharmaceutical solar project takes 12 to 24 months. Feasibility, energy auditing and tariff analysis take 1 to 3 months. Design, GMP change control and permitting take 3 to 6 months. Utility interconnection approval takes 2 to 6 months. Procurement takes 2 to 4 months. Construction, scheduled around production campaigns, lasts 2 to 4 months. Commissioning and validation add 1 to 2 months.