Wert-Berater, Inc. is an independent power generation feasibility study consultant preparing lender-, investor-, USDA-, and SBA-facing studies for gas-fired and reciprocating-engine generation, cogeneration and combined heat and power, behind-the-meter and distributed generation, and small utility and district energy systems. A generation credit is decided by three things a sponsor cannot control: whether the output is contracted, whether the plant can physically deliver it, and whether it can interconnect on the schedule the financing assumes. The analysis addresses those before it addresses anything else.
Fiduciary duty runs to the lender and the agency, never the borrower. Fixed fee quoted within one business day; standard delivery in ten to fifteen business days from a complete data room. 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.
Power-generation feasibility is offtake analysis above all: the power purchase agreement, capacity payment, or merchant-market exposure behind the revenue line, heat-rate and dispatch economics for thermal assets, interconnection position and transmission access, and the fuel-supply arrangements the plant depends on. Utility and district-system projects add rate-base and regulatory-approval analysis.
The analysis combines PPA and market-price review, regional capacity and demand data from the relevant ISO or balancing authority, fuel-supply assessment, and capital benchmarks by technology. Contracted and merchant cases are modeled separately, with coverage tested on the contracted case.
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. Oil, gas, and heavy-industrial projects reach us through conventional and institutional lending most commonly, with USDA B&I applicable to qualifying rural energy and processing assets and SBA programs serving owner-operator support businesses; each study is prepared to the corresponding compliance standard, with environmental and regulatory conditions precedent stated plainly.
Wert-Berater has not published a completed thermal power generation engagement as a public case study, and none is claimed here. The firm's published energy work sits in adjacent generation and conversion technologies — including an anaerobic digester and biogas feasibility study and a clean ammonia and hydrogen production facility study in Taft, California — where the determining variables are the same: contracted offtake, availability and capacity factor, fuel or feedstock cost, interconnection, and construction risk. Across 4,000+ engagements since 1998 the method does not change: fully linked models with no hardcoded values, assumptions sourced and footnoted rather than asserted, and coverage tested under downside cases before a determination is issued. Independence is non-negotiable, and determinations are not revised under pressure.
A power generation feasibility study consultant establishes the revenue the plant will actually earn, the energy it can actually deliver, and the cost of producing it, then tests whether the result services the debt across the loan term. Revenue analysis begins with the contract: a power purchase agreement, a behind-the-meter energy services agreement, a thermal offtake arrangement, or merchant sales each create a different certainty, and the study models what the executed documents provide rather than an average price per unit.
The engagement is economic and financial. Wert-Berater does not perform electrical, mechanical, or civil engineering, does not prepare interconnection or transmission system studies, does not design or rate generating equipment, and does not issue grid stability, protection, or resource assessment opinions. Interconnection studies, engineering reports, resource assessments, and capital estimates prepared by qualified firms are treated as inputs and tested for internal consistency against the construction schedule and financing plan.
A feasibility study for a power generation or utility asset is not a generic business-plan review. The scope is built around the specific revenue mechanism the project depends on—whether that is a long-term power purchase agreement, a capacity payment from a regional transmission organization, or exposure to merchant spot prices—and every downstream assumption flows from that determination. The study then works forward through fuel supply, dispatch economics, interconnection status, and capital cost benchmarks before arriving at a coverage conclusion the lender can defend.
Contracted revenue is the foundation of a financeable generation project, and it is read from the executed agreement. The study records the offtaker, contracted volume or capacity, the price and whether it is fixed, escalating, or indexed, the primary term and expiry date, curtailment and dispatch rights, availability guarantees and the liquidated damages attaching to them, and termination and change-in-law provisions. Capacity payments, energy payments, and ancillary service revenue are modeled separately because they behave differently under stress.
The contract term is compared directly against the loan amortization. Where the agreement expires first, the study reports coverage on the merchant or re-contracting assumptions that would apply, states the basis for those assumptions, and identifies the year the contracted revenue ends. Merchant exposure is never blended into contracted revenue; it is presented as a separate layer and stressed on its own. Offtaker credit is assessed directly, since a long-term agreement with a weak counterparty provides less protection than its tenor suggests.
Installed capacity is a nameplate figure; deliverable energy is what earns revenue. The study models expected generation net of planned maintenance outages, forced outage rate, parasitic and auxiliary load, ambient derating where it applies, and line losses to the point of delivery. Where a resource assessment or independent engineer's report provides an expected capacity factor, that figure is used as the technical basis and the study tests coverage at lower generation rather than only at the expected case.
Availability guarantees deserve specific attention because they cut both ways. Where the offtake agreement imposes an availability obligation with liquidated damages, the study models the exposure created if the plant underperforms, and where an equipment supplier provides an availability or output warranty, its term, cap, and counterparty are examined rather than assumed to neutralize the risk. The commissioning ramp is modeled explicitly, since debt service frequently begins before the plant achieves stable output.
Interconnection is the most common cause of delay and cost overrun in generation projects, and it is treated as a gating condition rather than a line item. The study establishes the current status of the interconnection process, what studies have been completed, what network upgrades have been identified and who bears their cost, the queue position where one applies, and the schedule the utility or system operator has actually committed to.
Where an interconnection agreement is not executed, the study reports the project as carrying unquantified schedule and cost risk and models the effect of delay on capitalized interest, contract milestone dates, and coverage in the first operating years. For behind-the-meter projects, standby, backup, and demand charges imposed by the serving utility are modeled directly, along with the net-metering, buy-back, or export terms that apply, because those tariff terms frequently determine whether the project economics work at all. These are assessed as economic and contractual factors; the firm does not prepare interconnection or transmission system studies.
For thermal generation, fuel is the dominant variable cost and its relationship to power price decides the credit. The study establishes the delivered fuel cost including transportation and any firm capacity charge, whether supply is contracted and for how long, and the heat rate at which the plant converts fuel to electricity across its actual operating range rather than at the single best design point. Part-load operation degrades heat rate, and where the dispatch profile implies frequent cycling, that degradation is modeled.
The resulting spark spread — power revenue less fuel cost at the operating heat rate — is tested rather than assumed stable. Where fuel is purchased at merchant prices and power is sold at merchant prices, the correlation between them is examined, since the two do not always move together and the gap is where the credit fails. Non-fuel operating cost is built line by line: labour, maintenance and major overhaul reserves, water, chemicals, insurance, emissions compliance, and property costs.
Demand analysis for a power generation asset is not a trade-area exercise. The relevant market is the wholesale or retail electricity market the project sells into, and the analytical task is to establish whether the revenue mechanism is durable at the modeled price and volume, not to count rooftops within a radius.
For contracted projects, the primary demand document is the offtake agreement itself. The study examines counterparty credit ratings or financial statements available in public filings, the load obligation the buyer is hedging, and whether the contract term aligns with the debt tenor. For merchant or partially merchant projects, the study draws on regional ISO forward price data, FERC Electric Quarterly Reports, and balancing-authority load forecasts to establish a price range the model can be stressed against.
Competitive supply analysis focuses on the ISO interconnection queue for the relevant region, which is a public document showing planned capacity additions by technology and expected commercial-operation date. Retirements filed with FERC or state utility commissions are reviewed alongside additions to assess net capacity trends. For utility and district-energy systems, state public utility commission rate cases and integrated resource plans provide the regulatory demand signal. Transmission access is confirmed through the executed interconnection agreement or, where that document is not yet final, through the project's queue position and the utility's published interconnection study results.
A small movement in the wrong input can push a power project from bankable to non-qualifying. The study identifies the variables with the highest leverage on debt-service coverage and stress-tests each one explicitly, so the lender can see exactly where the margin lives and how much adverse movement the project can absorb.
Every stress is applied inside the fully linked Excel model, so the coverage ratio recalculates automatically and the reviewer can confirm the arithmetic without accepting the analyst's word for it.
Inputs resolve into a fully linked model with no hardcoded values, producing a ten-year pro forma, annual and period debt-service coverage, and the coverage minimum applicable to the financing program. Construction, interconnection, and commissioning are funded inside the model with interest during construction and any debt-service reserve shown explicitly. Contracted revenue, merchant revenue, and any incentive- or credit-driven revenue are reported as separate layers.
Sensitivity is run on capacity factor and availability, contracted and merchant power price, delivered fuel cost and heat rate, major maintenance and overhaul capital, construction cost overrun and interconnection delay, offtake expiry and re-contracting price, incentive value, and interest rate. Where economics depend materially on a tax credit or incentive programme, coverage is re-tested with that value reduced and removed, because programme-driven revenue can change on a shorter horizon than the loan term. Interconnection studies, resource assessments, and engineering estimates from qualified firms are used as inputs; this study does not replace them.
Credit concerns for power generation differ materially from those for real-estate-secured or retail-business loans, and the study is written to address the questions a credit officer will raise before the loan committee, not after.
SBA engagements prepared to SOP 50 10 8 must demonstrate 1.15x operating coverage and 1.00x global coverage on the contracted revenue case. For power projects, the contracted case requires a qualifying offtake agreement; where revenue is partially or fully merchant, the study states that condition plainly and the coverage test is applied to the stressed price scenario, not the base case. SBA eligibility for owner-operator support businesses in the energy sector is addressed where applicable.
USDA engagements under RD Staff Instruction 5001 apply most commonly to rural renewable energy projects through the REAP program and to rural energy-processing assets through the Business & Industry guarantee. The study addresses the rural-area determination, the technology-readiness standard USDA applies to REAP projects, and the coverage standard stated in the applicable program instruction.
Conventional lenders typically require 1.20x coverage and place particular weight on offtake counterparty credit quality, the length of the PPA relative to the loan term, and the adequacy of reserve accounts for major maintenance and debt service. The study addresses each of these directly, with the reserve-account sizing shown in the pro forma and the counterparty credit position documented from public sources.
Every engagement begins with a fixed fee quoted in writing within one business day of the initial inquiry. The fee does not change based on the finding, and no portion of it is contingent on a positive determination or on loan approval. That structure is what makes the study usable as an independent third-party opinion: the analyst has no financial interest in the outcome.
Standard delivery is ten to fifteen business days from receipt of a complete data room. For power projects, a complete data room means the executed or draft offtake agreement, the interconnection agreement or queue confirmation, fuel-supply contracts, the EPC contract or cost estimate, the operating pro forma prepared by the sponsor, any resource assessment or performance model, and entity financial statements where a global cash-flow analysis is required. Incomplete submissions extend the timeline; the engagement letter states exactly what is needed so there is no ambiguity.
Rush delivery is available and is quoted at the time of engagement. Once the study is complete, the bound narrative report and the fully linked Excel model are published to a secure client portal. The model remains live: if the lender or agency reviewer wants to run a stress scenario not included in the standard sensitivity matrix, the inputs can be changed and the coverage ratios recalculate immediately, without a new engagement. Conditions precedent—permits, interconnection agreement execution, offtake counterparty approval—are stated explicitly in the report so the lender knows what must be resolved before the coverage conclusion is operative.
Generation projects are financed alongside their fuel supply and alongside alternative technologies competing for the same offtake. These engagements cover both.
Wert-Berater quotes a fixed fee in writing within one business day of inquiry. The fee is set before work begins, does not change based on the finding, and is never contingent on a positive determination or loan approval. Because power projects vary in complexity—a single contracted solar asset differs substantially from a merchant combined-cycle plant—the quote reflects the actual scope of the engagement.
Standard delivery is ten to fifteen business days from receipt of a complete data room. For power projects, that means the offtake agreement, interconnection documentation, fuel contracts, EPC cost estimate, sponsor pro forma, and any resource assessment. Incomplete submissions extend the timeline. Rush delivery is available and is priced at the time of engagement.
Revenue depends on variables most lenders do not routinely model: wholesale electricity prices, capacity auction outcomes, heat rates, dispatch-stack position, and the creditworthiness of an offtake counterparty rather than a borrower's customer base. Interconnection costs can be material and are sometimes not fully reflected in the sponsor's budget. The feasibility study isolates each variable, stress-tests it, and states the coverage result so the credit officer can see exactly where risk concentrates.
Yes, where both apply. The study models the contracted and merchant cases separately. Debt-service coverage is tested on the contracted case because that is the basis on which SBA and most conventional lenders will underwrite. Merchant exposure is analyzed and stress-tested against downside price scenarios, and the report states plainly how much of the revenue stack is uncontracted and over what period.
A single study can be prepared to satisfy multiple standards simultaneously. USDA REAP engagements follow RD Staff Instruction 5001 and address the program's technology-readiness and rural-area requirements. If a conventional lender is also involved, its coverage standard—typically 1.20x—is layered in. The engagement letter specifies every standard the study must meet before work begins.
The study can be completed using the queue confirmation and any available interconnection study results, but the executed agreement will be listed as a condition precedent in the report. That means the coverage conclusion is operative only once the agreement is in place and the network upgrade costs it specifies are confirmed. Lenders and agencies treat unresolved interconnection as a material condition, and the study reflects that accurately.
The consultant establishes contracted revenue from the executed offtake agreement, deliverable energy net of outages and parasitic load, interconnection status and schedule risk, and fuel cost at the plant's actual heat rate, then tests coverage across the loan term. The work is economic and financial; electrical engineering and interconnection studies are separate disciplines used as inputs.
It is read as executed and scheduled by offtaker, contracted volume or capacity, price and escalation or indexation, primary term and expiry, curtailment and dispatch rights, availability guarantees and their liquidated damages, and termination provisions. Capacity, energy, and ancillary revenue are modeled separately because they behave differently under stress.
The study identifies the year contracted revenue ends and reports coverage on the merchant or re-contracting assumptions that would then apply, stating the basis for those assumptions. Merchant exposure is presented as a separate layer and stressed on its own rather than blended into contracted revenue.
No. Expected generation is modeled net of planned maintenance outages, forced outage rate, parasitic and auxiliary load, ambient derating where applicable, and line losses to the point of delivery. Where an independent engineer or resource assessment provides an expected capacity factor, coverage is also tested at lower generation rather than only at the expected case.
The project is reported as carrying unquantified schedule and cost risk, and the study models the effect of delay on capitalized interest, contract milestone dates, and coverage in the first operating years. Identified network upgrades and who bears their cost are documented. Wert-Berater does not prepare interconnection or transmission system studies.
Power revenue less fuel cost is calculated at the heat rate the plant achieves across its actual operating range, not at the single best design point, since part-load operation degrades heat rate. Where both fuel and power are merchant-priced, the correlation between them is examined, because the two do not always move together and that gap is where the credit fails.
Where economics depend materially on a tax credit or incentive programme, the dependency is stated plainly and coverage is re-tested with the value reduced and then removed entirely. Programme-driven revenue can change with policy on a shorter horizon than the loan term, so it is never embedded silently in the base revenue line.
Financing resource. Our 90% SBA Energy Guarantee guide explains the International Trade Loan expansion for qualifying businesses. A power-generation project is not eligible merely because it is energy-related; applicable SBA rules and lender underwriting control.
A growing share of new generation is contracted against a single large load rather than a general merchant market. Where that load is a campus, the demand case belongs in a data center feasibility study, and the generation case is evaluated against that offtake rather than in isolation.
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.