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.
Hydro feasibility joins hydrology to licensing: the flow record and its variability, FERC licensing or exemption position as the gating condition, PPA or merchant revenue, and the civil-works capital that dominates the budget. Small and run-of-river projects are evaluated against their specific flow regimes with dry-year cases carried in the model.
Methodology uses USGS flow records, energy modeling across hydrological cases, licensing-status review, and civil capital benchmarks. Coverage is tested on dry-year production under contracted revenue.
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 hydroelectric power feasibility study is not a generic energy report repackaged for a new asset class. It is built around the specific physical and regulatory conditions of the site: the flow record, the licensed or exempted capacity, the civil-works scope, and the revenue structure that a lender must underwrite. Every Wert-Berater engagement for a hydro project produces a bound narrative report and a fully linked Excel model alongside the following asset-class-specific deliverables:
Hydroelectric power feasibility studies require a demand analysis that is fundamentally different from a retail or hospitality study. The “market” for a run-of-river or small hydro project is not a trade area of consumers; it is a regional grid with specific capacity needs, a utility or off-taker with a defined procurement posture, and a regulatory environment that determines what the power is worth and whether it can be delivered.
The analysis draws on utility integrated resource plans and publicly filed procurement solicitations to establish whether the off-taker has a documented need for the capacity and energy the project would supply. FERC electronic filings and state public utility commission dockets are reviewed for interconnection queue data, which reveals competing projects seeking access to the same transmission infrastructure. Regional transmission organization and independent system operator market data inform the merchant price assumption when no PPA is in place.
State renewable portfolio standard compliance reports and renewable energy credit registry data are examined to assess whether the project’s output qualifies for premium pricing under existing or anticipated RPS obligations. Where a power purchase agreement is already executed, the off-taker’s creditworthiness and the contract’s curtailment, force majeure, and termination provisions are reviewed directly. The result is a demand picture grounded in filed documents and regulatory records rather than in generalized assertions about the growth of renewable energy.
Four inputs drive the debt-service coverage ratio in a hydro feasibility model more than any others. Each is tested explicitly rather than held at a single point estimate, because lenders and agency reviewers are entitled to know how sensitive the coverage conclusion is to the assumptions on which it rests.
SBA, USDA, and conventional lenders each bring a distinct set of concerns to a hydro project, and a study prepared to only one standard will create exception items at the others.
Under SBA SOP 50 10 8, the study must demonstrate 1.15x operating debt-service coverage and 1.00x global coverage, with the global test incorporating all obligations of the borrowing entity and its principals. For a hydro project, the SBA reviewer will focus on whether the dry-year production case still supports those minimums and whether the FERC licensing position has been addressed as a going-concern risk rather than a footnote.
USDA Rural Development engagements under 7 CFR Part 5001 carry additional documentation requirements. REAP applications require energy-production documentation, an incentive analysis, and a payback calculation prepared to the agency’s stated methodology. Business & Industry applications require the same coverage discipline as SBA but with agency-specific ratio benchmarks and a community-impact narrative that the feasibility study must support without overstating.
Conventional lenders typically require 1.20x coverage and place particular weight on the offtake structure: a long-term PPA with an investment-grade counterparty is underwritten differently from merchant exposure. Interconnection cost certainty, transmission access, and the status of any required water rights or state environmental permits are underwriting conditions that a conventional credit officer will raise and that the study addresses directly. Independence of the analyst—no contingent fee, no revision under pressure—is the condition that makes the study usable across all three lending channels simultaneously.
The fee for a hydroelectric power feasibility study is fixed and quoted in writing within one business day of a project inquiry. No fee is contingent on the finding, and the determination is not revised because a sponsor is dissatisfied with the conclusion. That structure is what allows the study to serve the lender and the reviewing agency rather than the borrower.
Standard delivery runs 10 to 15 business days from the date a complete data room is received. The data room for a hydro project typically includes the USGS gauge record or a consultant-prepared hydrology report, the FERC license or exemption application and any issued orders, the executed or draft PPA, contractor or engineer’s estimates for civil works and equipment, interconnection agreements or queue confirmation, and the borrower’s historical financial statements. Rush delivery is available when a commitment deadline requires it.
When the engagement opens, every document submitted is logged and the financial model is built with no hardcoded values, so any reviewer can change any input and watch the pro forma and coverage ratios recalculate in real time. Upon completion, the bound narrative report and the live Excel model are published to a secure client portal. The model remains active: if a lender wants to run a stress case not included in the standard sensitivity table, the model supports that without a new engagement. The explicit statement of conditions that closes every report tells the lender precisely what must remain true for the coverage conclusion to hold.
The fee is fixed and quoted in writing within one business day of inquiry. It does not vary with the finding, and no portion is contingent on loan approval or project outcome. Because scope varies with project size, licensing complexity, and the number of hydrological cases required, the quote is project-specific rather than published as a schedule.
Standard delivery is 10 to 15 business days from receipt of a complete data room. For hydro projects, the data room must include the USGS flow record or hydrology report, FERC licensing documents, civil-works cost estimates, and the offtake agreement or merchant price basis. Rush delivery is available when a lender commitment deadline requires a shorter window.
Three factors combine in ways that do not appear together in solar or wind deals: the flow record introduces a physical production variable that cannot be hedged the way price can; FERC licensing or exemption status creates a regulatory gating condition that can delay or terminate a project after significant capital is deployed; and civil-works cost dominates the capital budget and carries meaningful overrun risk relative to equipment-only projects.
No, but the licensing position must be addressed explicitly. Where a license or exemption is pending or not yet applied for, the study states that condition clearly, models the capital-carrying cost of a delayed commercial operation date, and identifies the licensing milestone as a condition on which the favorable determination rests. Lenders and agencies expect that treatment rather than silence on the point.
Yes, provided the study is prepared to both standards from the outset. SBA SOP 50 10 8 and USDA 7 CFR Part 5001 share a common analytical foundation but differ in coverage minimums, documentation requirements, and—for REAP applications—energy-production and payback arithmetic. A study built to both standards simultaneously avoids the exception items that arise when a study prepared for one agency is submitted to another.
The primary source is the USGS National Water Information System gauge record for the relevant stream reach or a hydrologically comparable proxy gauge. Where a sponsor has commissioned a site-specific hydrology report from a licensed engineer, that report is used as the basis and the USGS record serves as a cross-check. The model carries median, dry-year, and critically dry exceedance cases so that coverage is tested across the range of realistic production outcomes.
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.