A framework, not a verdict
Delivery readiness is the question of whether a project can move from access right to construction to durable regional outcome. It depends on ten dimensions landing in sequence — planning, access rights, EPBC, grid, workforce, accommodation, supply chain, community engagement, First Nations partnership and biodiversity. This page documents the framework Lecroma uses, the bands it produces, and offers a self-assessment rubric you can apply to a project you have in mind — anonymously, in this browser, without naming anyone.
A public scoreboard with names attached looks like a verdict. It treats a complex, live picture as a fixed judgement. Proponents are mid-EIS, councils are mid-engagement, access schemes are still settling, and a single dimension can shift the picture in a quarter. A public ranking misrepresents that motion. Lecroma's posture is the opposite: the framework is public, the application is confidential. We do this work directly for proponents, councils, RDA bodies and investors who need a defensible delivery-readiness view to inform a decision — not to publicise one. How that engagement works →
Ten dimensions, sourced from public evidence
Each dimension is a separate question with its own evidence requirements. A project can be strong on one and weak on another; the framework's job is to keep the dimensions visible rather than collapsing them into a single headline.
Is the DA / SSD / SSI pathway determined? What conditions are attached? What's the next decision point?
Does the project hold a binding REZ access right under the relevant access scheme, or is it operating outside the scheme by design?
Has the federal Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act process resolved? What conditions or controlled-action calls are outstanding?
Is there a clear pathway to network connection with no material curtailment risk? Is the project's MW share competing with adjacent generators in the same network pocket?
Does the host region have the trades pool to staff this project at peak, accounting for adjacent REZ and non-REZ projects competing for the same workers?
Is the workforce accommodation strategy resolved? Will the project draw on host-community housing or operate from a precinct camp with legacy use?
Are oversize / overmass transport routes approved? Is aggregate, concrete and major-component sourcing locked in?
Is engagement coordinated at REZ scale with peer proponents, or duplicated project-by-project? Is there a standing reference group?
Is there a regional partnership (or genuine path to one) with relevant Land Councils and Native Title bodies? Or is the relationship project-by-project consultation only?
Are biodiversity offsets and habitat conditions resolved with a funded delivery pathway?
What you'd see in the file
Each band is described as the kind of evidence picture you'd expect to find — not as a numeric threshold. Two assessors using the framework will sometimes disagree on the band; they should never disagree on what the evidence is.
Planning approved with no major outstanding conditions. Access right awarded and confirmed. EPBC decided. Grid connection agreed with capacity confirmed. Workforce demand is staffable from the regional pool with normal sequencing. Accommodation strategy is in place. OSOM and supply chain are committed. Community engagement is coordinated with peer proponents. First Nations partnership is at agreement stage. Biodiversity offsets are secured.
The headline status is positive but specific dimensions are unresolved. Planning may be approved but workforce supply is tight. Or the access right is in hand but EPBC offsets are unresolved. Or community engagement is sound but the OSOM route is contested. The project's capital partners can defend a positive view, but the gaps will compound if unaddressed before mobilisation.
Several dimensions show 'no' or unresolved. Often the project is still in EIS or RTS, the access right is uncertain, the host region is contested on cumulative pressure, and the community engagement is fragmented or actively opposed. The framing question is whether to fix the gaps before the next access window, or to redesign the project's scope to match available regional delivery capacity.
The project is early-stage — scoping, investigation area, or SEARs — and most dimensions don't yet have evidence in the public record. The right move is information-gathering, not strategy. Even a 'no' on a dimension is more useful than an 'unknown' for planning purposes.
Apply the framework to a project you have in mind
- 01Planning
Has the project's planning pathway (DA / SSD / SSI) been determined, with no material outstanding pathway risk?
- 02Access right
Does the project hold a binding REZ access right (or operate outside the access regime by design)?
- 03EPBC
Has the federal EPBC pathway been resolved with no controlled-action conditions outstanding?
- 04Grid connection
Is there a clear grid-connection pathway with no material network curtailment or congestion risk?
- 05Workforce
Is the host region's workforce demand-supply ratio manageable for this project at peak (considering REZ + cross-sector competition)?
- 06Accommodation
Has the workforce accommodation strategy been resolved before mobilisation, with regional capacity not at risk?
- 07Supply chain & OSOM
Are OSOM transport routes, aggregate sourcing and major-component logistics secured?
- 08Community engagement
Is community engagement coordinated at REZ scale with peer proponents, with a standing reference group?
- 09First Nations
Is there a regional partnership (or a genuine pathway to one) with relevant Traditional Owner bodies?
- 10Biodiversity / offsets
Are biodiversity offsets and habitat conditions resolved with a clear delivery pathway?
How the framework reads on a fictional project
The project below is fictional — a composite designed to show the framework in action. It is not a real proponent, site or development. Any resemblance to a specific project is coincidental.
“Eastern Sands Energy Hub”
850 MW wind + 1,000 MWh BESS · proponent “Composite Renewables” · inside a declared NSW REZ · access scheme tender concluded last cycle without award
One “yes”, six “partials” and three “nos”. The access-right miss compounds the workforce and OSOM issues — the project would be competing for resources without the scheme's local-content levers. The framework would suggest either redesigning scope to match the regional delivery capacity, or sequencing the project behind the access-right cohort already mobilising.
This is not a recommendation to abandon the project — it's a reading of where the attention needs to go. A low band is a request for thinking, not a verdict.