{
  "docId": "019dd923-5de0-76bd-a167-fb14f4d30a04",
  "docSlug": "190510b49511442d",
  "documentTitle": "Lazard LCOE+",
  "authorId": "RolandBerger",
  "authorName": "Lazard",
  "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck",
  "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck",
  "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting",
  "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting",
  "presentationDate": null,
  "orientation": "landscape",
  "aspectRatio": 1.414,
  "pageNumber": 23,
  "pageCount": 48,
  "prevPage": 22,
  "nextPage": 24,
  "slideType": "case_study",
  "function": "illustrate_case",
  "density": "balanced",
  "nDataPoints": 21,
  "notes": "The slide uses a vertical segmentation (In-Front-of-the-Meter vs. Behind-the-Meter) to organize the case studies.",
  "elementsJson": [
    "data_table",
    "paragraph"
  ],
  "metadataConfidence": 1,
  "imagePath": null,
  "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5de0-76bd-a167-fb14f4d30a04/23",
  "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5de0-76bd-a167-fb14f4d30a04",
  "deckJsonHref": "/decks/019dd923-5de0-76bd-a167-fb14f4d30a04.json",
  "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5de0-76bd-a167-fb14f4d30a04#slide-23",
  "components": [
    {
      "bbox": {
        "h": 0.03,
        "w": 0.8,
        "x": 0.045,
        "y": 0.215
      },
      "kind": "paragraph",
      "text": "Lazard’s Value Snapshots analyze the financial viability of illustrative energy storage systems designed for selected use cases",
      "attrs": null,
      "subkind": "paragraph",
      "toolName": null,
      "toolSlug": null,
      "confidence": null,
      "componentId": "690a6bab-af51-42b9-a623-94e30f2a4fc9",
      "frameworkName": null,
      "frameworkSlug": null
    },
    {
      "bbox": {
        "h": 0.05,
        "w": 0.5,
        "x": 0.155,
        "y": 0.88
      },
      "kind": "source-note",
      "text": "Source: Lazard and Roland Berger estimates, Enovation Analytics and publicly available information. Note: Actual project returns may vary due to differences in location-specific costs, revenue streams and owner/developer risk preferences.",
      "attrs": null,
      "subkind": null,
      "toolName": null,
      "toolSlug": null,
      "confidence": null,
      "componentId": "6c2a7458-4653-4196-97a6-b77f866be1a6",
      "frameworkName": null,
      "frameworkSlug": null
    },
    {
      "bbox": {
        "h": 0.6,
        "w": 0.91,
        "x": 0.045,
        "y": 0.28
      },
      "kind": "table",
      "text": "Table of 7 case studies with columns for Location, Description, Storage (MW), Generation (MW), Storage Duration (hours), and Revenue Streams.",
      "attrs": null,
      "subkind": "data",
      "toolName": null,
      "toolSlug": null,
      "confidence": null,
      "componentId": "9d2c40bb-2ae4-4080-9098-b947a541c159",
      "frameworkName": null,
      "frameworkSlug": null
    },
    {
      "bbox": {
        "h": 0.03,
        "w": 0.45,
        "x": 0.045,
        "y": 0.155
      },
      "kind": "title",
      "text": "Value Snapshot Case Studies—Overview",
      "attrs": null,
      "subkind": "headline",
      "toolName": null,
      "toolSlug": null,
      "confidence": null,
      "componentId": "c4e4b143-7289-4fad-a154-2a25ee6dcabd",
      "frameworkName": null,
      "frameworkSlug": null
    }
  ],
  "metrics": [],
  "tools": [
    {
      "name": "Chunking",
      "slug": "chunking",
      "agent": "Architect",
      "layer": "loop",
      "matchId": "019de8e9-c2b0-70f6-8305-3b7bb96c7c51",
      "evidence": "IFM vs BTM split chunks the seven cases",
      "confidence": 60
    },
    {
      "name": "Chart Selection Guide",
      "slug": "chart-selection-guide",
      "agent": "Designer",
      "layer": "slide",
      "matchId": "019de8e9-c28f-717a-a3c1-f5d2f3041ec3",
      "evidence": "Taxonomy data table",
      "confidence": 60
    }
  ],
  "frameworks": [
    {
      "name": "market-segmentation-pyramid",
      "slug": null,
      "matchId": "7cd007bf-451c-4221-b7ca-7a3a783275bf",
      "evidence": "Categorization of storage systems into In-Front-of-the-Meter and Behind-the-Meter segments.",
      "confidence": 0.7
    }
  ],
  "arcBeats": [
    {
      "to": 29,
      "from": 9,
      "beatId": "019de8e9-b9e8-7495-9d03-f088e78d95b4",
      "arcName": "The Triple Take",
      "arcSlug": "triple-take",
      "beatName": "The Facts (What)",
      "beatSlug": null,
      "evidence": "LCOE/LCOS/LCOH benchmarking, sensitivity, cost-component charts",
      "position": 1,
      "confidence": 50,
      "parentBeatName": null,
      "parentBeatSlug": null
    },
    {
      "to": 29,
      "from": 7,
      "beatId": "019de8e9-ba8d-77ee-ae2c-b5633a8eaa8c",
      "arcName": "The Onion",
      "arcSlug": "onion",
      "beatName": "Deeper Layer",
      "beatSlug": null,
      "evidence": "LCOE, LCOS, LCOH detailed comparisons and sensitivities",
      "position": 3,
      "confidence": 35,
      "parentBeatName": null,
      "parentBeatSlug": null
    }
  ],
  "loops": [
    {
      "to": 25,
      "from": 20,
      "name": "Segmentation Split",
      "slug": "34-segmentation-split",
      "bestFor": "Customer analysis, market research, resource allocation",
      "matchId": "019de8e9-bb5a-7354-9f03-67db31523c3b",
      "evidence": "LCOS comparisons by configuration (p.20-21), revenue-stream matrix (p.22), then case-study results decomposed by segment (p.23-25).",
      "position": 4,
      "objective": "Segment LCOS economics by storage use case (IFM vs BTM)",
      "structure": "The Aggregate View -> Segment A Behavior -> Segment B Behavior -> The Insight in the Difference",
      "confidence": 55,
      "description": "Divide a whole into meaningful segments to reveal hidden patterns"
    }
  ],
  "imagePathAlt": null,
  "thumbSrc": null,
  "thumbSrcAlt": null,
  "locked": true
}