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.
Hydrogen feasibility rests on offtake reality: the industrial customer, fleet, or fueling demand behind the electrolyzer or production unit, delivered-cost economics against incumbent supply, power-price exposure for green hydrogen, and the incentive framework modeled at realistic value and duration. Fueling-station projects are evaluated on the specific fleet commitments and corridor demand they serve, not on adoption forecasts.
The analysis combines offtake and fleet-demand review, power-rate and electrolyzer cost modeling, incentive analysis, and delivered-cost comparison against alternatives. Coverage is tested on committed offtake.
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 hydrogen feasibility study is not a technology review. It is a credit document built around the specific revenue stream, cost structure, and risk profile of the subject facility. The scope is defined by what a lender or agency reviewer must be able to verify independently, not by what a sponsor finds convenient to present. For hydrogen production and fueling projects, that means the study must resolve offtake commitment, delivered-cost competitiveness, power-price exposure, incentive durability, and permitting status before any projection is treated as supportable.
Hydrogen demand analysis cannot be built from adoption-curve forecasts or national market-size statistics. Those figures do not survive lender scrutiny because they do not identify a paying customer. The analysis starts with the committed load: the industrial offtaker with a signed or near-signed agreement, the fleet operator with a conversion timeline, or the transit authority with a procurement record. Every unit of projected throughput is traced to a named category of customer and a documented basis for the volume.
For fueling stations, demand is built from traffic-count data on the subject corridor, vehicle-registration records filtered for fuel-cell electric vehicles in the service area, fleet-operator interviews or letters of intent, and publicly available fleet-electrification plans filed with state air-quality or public-utilities agencies. For production facilities, the analysis draws on utility interconnection-queue filings to assess competing supply, industrial gas market data from trade association publications, and any publicly filed offtake or power-purchase agreements from comparable facilities. Competitive supply is mapped by reviewing existing and permitted hydrogen production capacity within the relevant delivery radius, including merchant supply from steam methane reforming facilities and any announced electrolysis projects visible in state permitting or air-permit registries. The result is a demand picture anchored in evidence that a credit officer can re-examine, not a projection that requires accepting an analyst’s assumptions on faith.
A small number of inputs drive the debt-service-coverage ratio for hydrogen production and fueling projects. Identifying them precisely, and testing each one across a defined range, is the analytical work that separates a study built for credit review from one built for a pitch deck. The four inputs below consistently determine whether a hydrogen project clears the applicable coverage threshold—or does not.
SBA, USDA, and conventional lenders each bring a distinct set of concerns to hydrogen projects, and a study prepared without understanding those distinctions will generate exception items that delay or defeat the credit.
Under SBA SOP 50 10 8, the coverage minimums are 1.15x on an operating basis and 1.00x on a global basis. SBA reviewers focus on whether the offtake is arm’s-length and documented, whether incentive income is treated conservatively, and whether the analyst has addressed the early-stage nature of the hydrogen fueling market without relying on speculative demand. The study must demonstrate that the business is independently viable at the coverage floor, not merely viable if all incentives are realized on schedule.
USDA REAP engagements require energy-production documentation, a simple payback calculation, and an energy audit or equivalent technical assessment. The B&I program adds standard feasibility requirements but is particularly attentive to rural job creation and community economic impact, which must be quantified from the project model rather than asserted. REAP and B&I can be layered on the same project, and the study must satisfy both instruction sets simultaneously.
Conventional lenders typically require 1.20x coverage and place additional weight on collateral liquidation value for specialized hydrogen equipment, offtake-counterparty credit quality, and the lender’s ability to step into contracts if the borrower defaults. Each of these concerns is addressed directly in the study rather than left for the credit memo to resolve.
The engagement begins with a fixed fee quoted within one business day of an initial inquiry. The fee does not change based on the finding, and no portion of it is contingent on a favorable conclusion. That structure is not a policy preference—it is the condition under which an independent determination is possible. A fee tied to loan approval is a fee tied to the answer, and that relationship compromises every number in the report.
Work begins when the data room is complete. A complete data room for a hydrogen project includes utility interconnection documentation or power-purchase agreement, offtake agreements or fleet-commitment letters, equipment specifications and vendor quotes, site-control documentation, permitting status, and any prior technical studies. Standard delivery is 10 to 15 business days from that point. Rush delivery is available when a credit deadline requires it.
The deliverable is a bound narrative report and a fully linked Excel model with no hardcoded values. Every assumption is an input cell; every output recalculates when an input changes. The model is published to a secure client portal where it remains live throughout the credit process. If a lender asks what happens to coverage if the power rate rises by 15 percent, the answer is available in seconds without a revision cycle. The explicit statement of conditions at the close of the report tells the lender exactly what must remain true for the projections to hold—which is the information a credit officer needs to make a decision, not a guarantee of any outcome.
The fee is fixed and quoted within one business day of an initial inquiry. It does not vary based on the finding, and no portion is contingent on loan approval or a favorable conclusion. Because scope varies by project size, technology type, and the number of lending programs involved, the quote is specific to each engagement rather than published as a schedule.
Standard delivery is 10 to 15 business days from the date the data room is complete. Rush delivery is available when a credit deadline requires a shorter window. The most common cause of delay is an incomplete data room—missing utility interconnection documentation, unsigned offtake letters, or absent equipment quotes extend the timeline because the analysis cannot be completed without them.
Three factors make hydrogen underwriting genuinely difficult: demand is often pre-commercial and not yet supported by executed offtake, the levelized cost of green hydrogen is highly sensitive to power-price assumptions that are difficult to lock for a ten-year projection period, and incentive structures such as Section 45V carry qualification requirements that are still being interpreted through IRS guidance. A credible study addresses each of these directly rather than assuming them away.
Not automatically. REAP requires energy-production documentation, a simple payback calculation, and energy-audit equivalents that SBA does not mandate. When a project seeks both SBA and USDA financing, the study must be built to satisfy both instruction sets simultaneously. Wert-Berater prepares combined engagements structured to meet every applicable standard without producing two separate documents.
Lenders generally require executed or near-final offtake agreements, minimum-volume or take-or-pay commitments, and evidence of the counterparty’s creditworthiness. Letters of intent are reviewed but are treated as weaker evidence than executed contracts. Fleet-conversion schedules, transit-authority procurement records, and industrial supply agreements are the categories of documentation that move a demand assumption from speculative to supportable.
Yes. REAP and B&I can be layered on the same hydrogen project, and a study can be structured to satisfy both RD Staff Instruction 5001 program requirements simultaneously. The B&I analysis addresses rural economic impact and standard feasibility criteria; the REAP component adds energy-production documentation, payback arithmetic, and the technical assessment the program requires. The deliverable is a single integrated report, not two separate studies.
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.