Prepared for lenders, CDCs, and federal agencies to SBA SOP 50 10 8, USDA 7 CFR Part 5001, and conventional underwriting standards. Fiduciary duty runs to the lender and the agency, never the borrower. 4,000+ engagements since 1998 covering $41.2 billion in evaluated project value. So far in 2026: 41 engagements and $1.54 billion evaluated — 17 SBA, 11 USDA.
Geothermal feasibility is resource risk first: the temperature and flow evidence behind the resource, drilling cost and success-rate assumptions, PPA or direct-use offtake, and the firm-power premium the technology can command. Ground-source heating projects are evaluated on installed-cost payback against conventional systems for the specific building load.
The analysis reviews resource assessments independently, drilling and completion cost benchmarks, offtake terms, and operating data from comparable plants. Coverage is tested with resource-performance sensitivity stated plainly.
Every Wert-Berater financial model is fully linked with no hardcoded values, so any reviewer can stress any input. Deliverables comprise a complete narrative report and the linked Excel model, with ten-year pro forma, sensitivity analysis at ±5, 10, and 15 percent, interest-rate stress from +0.5 to +3.0 percent, and ratio analysis benchmarked against RMA and IBISWorld data.
SBA engagements are prepared to SOP 50 10 8, including its debt-service-coverage minimums of 1.15x operating and 1.00x global. USDA engagements follow RD Staff Instruction 5001 across the Business & Industry, Community Facilities, REAP, and Value-Added Producer Grant programs. Conventional engagements are built to the lender's stated coverage standard, typically 1.20x. Clean-energy engagements are prepared to USDA 7 CFR Part 5001 where REAP and B&I apply — including the energy-production documentation, incentive analysis, and payback arithmetic REAP requires — and to conventional and institutional standards otherwise, with interconnection and incentive risk addressed directly rather than assumed away.
Representative clean-energy work includes a $52,688,000 green carbon project evaluation and renewable-energy feasibility within the firm's USDA REAP and B&I practice. Independence is non-negotiable: determinations follow the evidence and are not revised under pressure, and studies are built to pass lender, agency, and third-party review without exception items.
A geothermal energy feasibility study prepared by Wert-Berater addresses the full chain of technical and financial risk that a lender or agency reviewer must resolve before committing capital. The scope begins with the resource evidence — temperature gradient data, well logs, flow-test results, and third-party reservoir assessments — and carries through to the operating economics at the plant or direct-use system level. The narrative explains what the resource evidence supports, where it is thin, and how that thinness is reflected in the financial projections.
The conditions statement identifies what must remain true for the projections to hold, so a credit officer can track those conditions through closing and into loan monitoring without ambiguity.
Demand analysis for a geothermal project is not a population-growth argument. It is a contract-by-contract or load-by-load accounting of who will take the energy, at what price, and under what commitment structure. The analyst works from the specific offtake evidence first and uses market data to test whether that evidence is credible and durable.
For utility-scale power projects, the analysis draws on FERC interconnection queue filings, ISO or RTO market-price data, and executed or draft power-purchase agreement terms to establish the revenue baseline. Comparable PPA pricing from public utility commission filings and state renewable-energy procurement records provides the competitive reference. For direct-use and district-heating projects, the demand case is built from building-load calculations, existing utility bills, and signed or letter-of-intent offtake commitments from anchor users such as municipalities, agricultural processors, or greenhouse operators.
Competitive-supply analysis reviews permitted and operating geothermal capacity in the relevant balancing authority or service territory, drawing on state energy office records, utility integrated-resource plans, and interconnection queue data. For direct-use heat, the competitive frame is the incumbent fuel — typically natural gas or propane — and the analysis prices that alternative at current and stressed commodity rates. Trade association data from the Geothermal Rising membership and project databases supplements the public-record review where project-level detail is otherwise unavailable. The result is a demand case grounded in identifiable counterparties and verifiable price references, not a share-of-market assumption.
Four inputs move the debt-service-coverage ratio in a geothermal project more than any others. Each is tested explicitly rather than accepted at the sponsor's stated value.
Each assumption is sourced, cited, and stress-tested so the credit officer can see exactly what breaks the coverage ratio and at what threshold.
SBA lenders reviewing a geothermal project under SOP 50 10 8 require the feasibility study to demonstrate 1.15x debt-service coverage on an operating basis and 1.00x on a global basis, with those ratios supported by independently reviewed resource and revenue assumptions. The SBA's concern is whether the project can service debt from operations without relying on equity infusions or incentive proceeds that may not materialize on schedule. The study addresses that concern directly by separating operating cash flow from incentive receipts in the coverage calculation.
USDA Rural Development reviewers under 7 CFR Part 5001 apply the same coverage discipline across the Business & Industry and REAP programs, and REAP engagements carry additional documentation requirements: the energy-production estimate must be independently supported, the simple payback calculation must follow USDA's prescribed methodology, and the incentive analysis must distinguish between grant proceeds and loan-guarantee benefits. Wert-Berater prepares each of those elements as discrete, labeled sections so the agency reviewer can locate and verify them without reconstructing the analysis.
Conventional lenders typically require 1.20x coverage and place particular weight on the offtake contract structure, the operator's track record with comparable reservoirs, and the adequacy of the make-up well reserve. They also scrutinize interconnection risk: a project that has not cleared the affected-system study stage carries materially higher cost uncertainty than one with a signed interconnection agreement, and the study states that distinction plainly rather than treating all queue positions as equivalent.
The fee for a geothermal energy feasibility study is fixed, quoted in writing within one business day of an inquiry, and is not contingent on the finding. Because Wert-Berater's fiduciary duty runs to the lender and the reviewing agency rather than to the borrower, the fee structure is designed to remove any financial incentive to reach a particular conclusion. A sponsor or lender who needs a number before committing to the engagement receives it promptly and without obligation.
Standard delivery is 10 to 15 business days from the date a complete data room is received. For geothermal projects, a complete data room includes the resource assessment or well-test report, drilling cost estimates, the draft or executed offtake agreement, interconnection documentation, equipment specifications, and the operator's financial statements. Rush delivery is available when the lending timeline requires it. Incomplete data rooms delay delivery; the engagement letter identifies the required documents precisely so that gap does not arise unexpectedly.
Once delivered, the bound narrative report and fully linked Excel model are published to a secure client portal. The financial model remains live: a credit officer, agency reviewer, or third-party auditor can change any input — resource flow rate, drilling cost, PPA price, interest rate — and watch every downstream calculation update instantly. No values are hardcoded. That architecture means the model survives the underwriting process and remains useful through loan monitoring, without requiring the analyst to rebuild it each time assumptions are revised.
The fee is fixed and quoted in writing within one business day of an inquiry. It is not contingent on the finding and does not change based on the outcome of the analysis. Because project scope varies — a small direct-use system differs substantially from a utility-scale power plant — the quote is specific to the engagement after a brief review of the project description.
Standard delivery is 10 to 15 business days from receipt of a complete data room. Rush delivery is available when a lending deadline requires it. The data room for a geothermal project must include the resource assessment or well-test report, drilling cost estimates, offtake documentation, and interconnection status records. Missing documents are the most common cause of delays.
Resource risk is the distinguishing difficulty. Unlike solar or wind, where production can be estimated from publicly available irradiance or wind data, geothermal output depends on subsurface temperature and flow characteristics that can only be confirmed through drilling. Dry-hole risk, reservoir decline rates, and make-up well costs introduce uncertainties that most renewable-energy underwriting frameworks are not designed to handle, and a credible study must address each one explicitly.
REAP requires an energy-production estimate prepared by a qualified technical professional, and that requirement is distinct from the financial feasibility determination. Wert-Berater's REAP engagements incorporate the energy-production documentation, simple payback calculation, and incentive analysis that USDA prescribes, prepared as labeled sections so the agency reviewer can locate each element without reconstructing the analysis from the narrative.
A single study can be structured to meet both standards when the project qualifies under both programs, but the coverage tests and documentation requirements differ. SBA SOP 50 10 8 requires 1.15x operating and 1.00x global coverage. USDA 7 CFR Part 5001 applies its own coverage discipline and adds program-specific documentation. Each requirement is addressed as a discrete, labeled section so neither reviewer must infer compliance from the other's framework.
At minimum: a third-party resource assessment or well-test report with temperature and flow data, drilling and completion cost estimates from a qualified contractor, reservoir or formation comparables if available, the draft or executed offtake agreement or direct-use contract, interconnection queue documentation, and equipment specifications from the plant designer. The engagement letter identifies required documents precisely so the data room can be assembled without ambiguity.
Qualify a project. Tell us about the project and the program. We will tell you the truth about it — scope, timeline, and fee confirmed before work begins.
Schedule a Zoom Call →Legal disclosure. Wert-Berater, Inc. offices are mailing addresses only. Following the COVID-19 pandemic the firm has elected to work remotely; its office locations receive mail and are not staffed for visitors or in-person meetings. Headquarters mailing address: 1968 South Coast Hwy, Ste 2382, Laguna Beach, CA 92651.
Wert-Berater, Inc. is an independent provider of feasibility studies and other related services. The firm does not provide financing or equity investment advice, and does not arrange, broker, or place debt or equity capital of any kind.
All appraisal assignments are performed by Bruce E. Jones, MAI, ASA-GC, BCA, CMEA, a member of the Appraisal Institute since 2006, a staff member of Wert-Berater, Inc. and owner of Special Purpose Realty Valuation.