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.
Solar feasibility joins resource to revenue contract: the production estimate from irradiance data and system design — independently tested against P50 and P90 cases — the PPA, community-solar subscription, or merchant exposure behind the revenue line, interconnection position and upgrade cost allocation, and the incentive stack (investment tax credit, state programs, REAP grant where eligible) modeled at its real value and timing. Land control, setbacks, and decommissioning obligations are documented as the agency expects.
Methodology uses NREL irradiance and production modeling, interconnection-queue and utility data, PPA and subscription review, and installed-cost benchmarks by system class. Coverage is tested at P90 production under the contracted case, with REAP documentation prepared to 7 CFR Part 5001 where the program applies.
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 solar feasibility study for lending purposes is not an engineering report and is not a developer's pro forma. It is an independent credit document that translates physical production into bankable cash flow, then tests whether that cash flow supports the proposed debt under the applicable program standard. The scope is built around the specific risk architecture of photovoltaic generation: resource variability, offtake structure, interconnection cost, and incentive timing.
Solar generation is not a retail business, so the demand analysis does not count rooftops or survey consumer preferences. It answers a narrower and more consequential question: is there a creditworthy buyer for the power at the price and volume the pro forma assumes, and does the grid have room to deliver it? Every element of the market section is sourced from documents that a lender or agency reviewer can independently verify.
Offtake demand is evaluated through the executed or draft PPA or subscription agreement itself, the counterparty's credit profile drawn from public financial disclosures, and, for community-solar programs, the state program rules and subscriber waitlist data published by the utility or public-utilities commission. Merchant price assumptions are benchmarked against forward price curves published by regional transmission organizations and independent system operators, not developer projections.
Competitive supply analysis uses the utility's interconnection queue, which is a public filing, to identify projects ahead of the subject in line for the same transmission capacity. State renewable-portfolio-standard compliance data, published by the relevant public-utilities commission, establishes whether incremental supply is needed or whether the market is already long. Incentive availability is confirmed against IRS guidance, USDA REAP funding notices, and state program appropriation records — all primary sources — rather than assumed from developer marketing materials.
Four variables account for the majority of coverage-ratio movement in a photovoltaic project. Each is tested independently and in combination so the lender can see which input, or which combination, breaks the credit.
Each program standard imposes specific documentation requirements that a generic feasibility study does not satisfy. Preparing to the wrong standard is the most common reason a study is returned for revision.
Under SBA SOP 50 10 8, the study must demonstrate 1.15x debt-service coverage on an operating basis and 1.00x on a global basis. For a solar project, the operating coverage calculation must treat the ITC correctly — it is a one-time capital benefit, not recurring operating income — and must account for any debt at the sponsor level that enters the global calculation. The SBA also expects the feasibility analyst to be independent of the borrower and the lender, with no contingent fee.
USDA REAP engagements carry additional documentation requirements: the energy-production estimate, the simple payback calculation, the existing energy baseline, and the technical report must all meet 7 CFR Part 5001 specifications. B&I engagements under the same instruction require market-area definition and competitive-supply analysis consistent with the program's underwriting expectations.
Conventional lenders typically require 1.20x coverage and focus heavily on offtake counterparty credit, interconnection certainty, and the decommissioning reserve structure. Institutional lenders financing larger utility-scale arrays add requirements around independent engineer sign-off on the production model and insurance adequacy. The feasibility study addresses each of these directly, with the interconnection and incentive risk quantified rather than noted and set aside.
The engagement begins with a fixed fee quoted within one business day of receiving the project summary. The fee does not change based on the study's finding, and no portion of it is contingent on loan approval or project completion. That structure is not a marketing position; it is the condition under which an independent determination is possible.
Delivery runs ten to fifteen business days from the date the data room is complete. A complete data room for a solar engagement includes the site-control documents, the interconnection application and any utility study results received to date, the executed or draft offtake agreement, the developer's energy model and system design summary, three years of sponsor financial statements for the global coverage calculation, and the construction cost breakdown with contractor qualifications. Rush delivery is available when the lending timeline requires it.
Every engagement is published to a secure client portal. The linked Excel model remains live in the portal and recalculates when any input changes — a meaningful feature for solar projects, where interconnection costs and incentive amounts often shift between the study date and loan closing. The lender or agency reviewer can open the model, change any assumption, and see the coverage impact immediately, without requesting a revised report. The narrative report, the ten-year pro forma, the sensitivity tables, and the statement of conditions are all delivered as a single bound package through the same portal.
The fee is fixed and quoted within one business day of receiving the project summary. It does not vary based on the study's finding, and no portion is contingent on loan approval. Because the scope varies by system size, program type, and complexity of the offtake and interconnection structure, the firm quotes each engagement individually rather than publishing a rate schedule.
Standard delivery is ten to fifteen business days from the date the data room is complete. Rush delivery is available when the lender's commitment timeline requires it. The most common cause of delay is an incomplete data room — missing interconnection study results or an unsigned offtake agreement — so assembling those documents before engagement start keeps the schedule on track.
Three features distinguish solar from conventional commercial credit: revenue depends on a physical production estimate that carries statistical uncertainty, not a signed lease from a creditworthy tenant; the largest incentive is a one-time capital benefit whose timing affects the debt-service calculation materially; and interconnection cost can remain unsettled at loan closing. A credible study quantifies each of those risks rather than assuming them away.
REAP requires specific technical and financial documentation under 7 CFR Part 5001, including an energy-production estimate, an existing-energy-use baseline, a simple payback calculation, and, for larger projects, a technical report. Whether a full independent feasibility study is required depends on project size and the lender's program structure. Engagements prepared here are built to satisfy those requirements where they apply.
P50 is the median production estimate — the level exceeded in roughly half of years. P90 is the level exceeded in nine of ten years, representing a conservative downside. Lenders and agencies generally underwrite debt-service coverage to the P90 case because it reflects the realistic low-production scenario. The feasibility study states both cases and applies the P90 figure as the operative coverage test.
Yes, when the engagement is scoped to cover both programs from the outset. SBA SOP 50 10 8 and USDA 7 CFR Part 5001 impose overlapping but not identical requirements. A study prepared to both standards simultaneously — with the REAP energy documentation, payback arithmetic, and incentive analysis integrated into the full credit narrative — satisfies both reviewing bodies without requiring a separate report for each.
A solar farm feasibility study begins with the developable footprint rather than gross acreage. Parcel boundaries are reconciled with the preliminary array plan, access and internal roads, inverter and transformer locations, collector lines, the point of interconnection and any operations compound. The analysis then identifies land that may be unavailable because of setbacks, easements, rights of way, topography, drainage, wetlands, habitat, flood exposure, cultural resources or incompatible adjoining uses. A parcel can appear ample on a land schedule while providing too little contiguous usable area for the proposed direct-current capacity once these exclusions are mapped.
Terrain affects both yield and cost. Slope, aspect, grading requirements, soil bearing conditions and erosion controls influence row spacing, tracker suitability, foundation design and civil work. Shading is reviewed at the horizon and within the planned layout, including vegetation, landform, nearby structures and potential future development. The study does not replace a survey, geotechnical report, environmental assessment or engineer's layout. It tests whether those documents, where available, support the land-use and cost assumptions carried in the business case and states any unresolved diligence as a condition rather than treating it as settled.
Site control is examined alongside physical fit. A ground lease should be long enough for construction, the operating term and any extensions assumed in the model, with access, utility easements, assignment rights, lender cure rights and decommissioning obligations understood. Purchase options, escalation clauses and restoration standards are reflected in the appropriate capital or operating line. For agricultural land, the review also considers continued agricultural use, dual-use proposals, drainage systems and the practical effect of fencing and access on neighbouring operations.
Resource assessment distinguishes the weather record from the developer's production output. Irradiance inputs may be sourced from recognised satellite-derived and typical-meteorological-year datasets, then compared with any nearby ground measurements that are suitable in duration and quality. The analyst records the dataset, period, spatial resolution and treatment of missing or anomalous observations. Global horizontal, direct normal and plane-of-array irradiance are not interchangeable; the relevant measure depends on module orientation and whether the design is fixed-tilt or tracking.
The developer's energy model is reviewed as a chain of assumptions. Array geometry, module and inverter specifications, direct-current to alternating-current ratio, clipping, temperature response, soiling, snow where relevant, mismatch, wiring, transformer losses, availability, curtailment and grid outages all stand between resource and energy delivered at the meter. The solar feasibility study consultant reconciles those losses with the engineering basis and flags unexplained optimism or double counting. Independent-engineer work remains a separate technical discipline, but its conclusions and the feasibility model should use consistent equipment, capacity and loss assumptions.
Annual degradation is applied to delivered energy rather than left as a narrative note. Module warranties are evidence, not a substitute for an operating assumption; the selected rate should be consistent with the technology, climate, maintenance plan and technical review. Production uncertainty is shown through base and downside cases, with the lower-output case carried through revenue, cash flow and debt-service coverage. This prevents a conservative energy case from being presented beside financial projections that still use the sponsor's higher forecast.
For a utility-scale solar feasibility study, an accepted interconnection application is only the start of the queue process. The review identifies the applicable utility or system operator, requested capacity, point of interconnection, current queue status, study stage, deposits, security postings and anticipated milestones. Feasibility, system-impact and facilities studies may progressively refine the scope and allocation of network upgrades. The report separates work needed solely for the project from broader upgrades whose timing, allocation or dependency may remain uncertain.
Queue position alone does not establish deliverability. Projects ahead of the subject may withdraw, change size or trigger upgrades, while clustered studies and restudies can alter both schedule and cost. Transmission congestion, substation transformer limitations, feeder hosting capacity, protection requirements, export limits and planned utility work are considered using the utility's own documents and applicable public queue information. Where definitive utility evidence is unavailable, the model uses a disclosed range or contingency and the report identifies completion of the relevant study as a financing or closing condition.
The energisation path is tied to the construction schedule and revenue start. Long-lead utility equipment, easement acquisition, telemetry, metering, witness testing and permission to operate can lag mechanical completion. Delay cases therefore include carrying costs, extended land payments, contractor remobilisation and deferred revenue rather than moving the commercial-operation date without consequence. Curtailment rights and congestion exposure are also allocated to the correct party under the interconnection and offtake documents.
Permitting analysis is jurisdiction-specific and avoids assuming that a use allowed in one county will be treated the same way in another. The study traces the known path through zoning or conditional-use review, site-plan approval, building and electrical permits, road or driveway approval, stormwater controls and any required public hearing. Setbacks, screening, glare, height, fencing, emergency access, vegetation management and decommissioning security are checked against the project's submitted plan and available local requirements. Legal conclusions remain with counsel and the authority having jurisdiction.
Environmental and land-use diligence considers wetlands and waters, floodplains, threatened or protected species, cultural and archaeological resources, prime or protected farmland, wildfire conditions, drainage, erosion and prior contamination as applicable to the site. The feasibility analysis records the status of surveys, consultations and agency reviews rather than presuming approval. Mitigation can reduce usable area, change construction methods or create seasonal work restrictions, so cost and schedule effects are carried into the model when supported and treated as unresolved exposure when they are not yet known.
Community process can affect timing even when the technical use is permissible. The review considers notice and hearing steps, local concerns about views, drainage, road use, emergency response and end-of-life restoration, together with commitments already made by the developer. Host-community payments or other negotiated obligations are included only when documented. A lender can then distinguish ordinary permitting work from a contested entitlement path that could impair the construction start or invalidate a land-control deadline.
The development budget is organised so that scope gaps cannot disappear inside a single installed-cost allowance. Major categories include modules, inverters, racking or trackers, foundations, balance of system, civil work, collection equipment, substation and interconnection work, engineering, procurement, construction management, development fees, land, permitting, environmental mitigation, owner-furnished equipment, insurance, financing costs, reserves and contingency. Taxes and incentives are treated according to the project's actual ownership and transaction structure, with specialist tax advice left to the appropriate adviser.
EPC review focuses on price certainty, design responsibility, exclusions, allowances, change-order rights, schedule milestones, delay remedies, performance testing, completion guarantees, warranties and security supporting contractor obligations. The feasibility report reconciles the contract scope with the interconnection agreement, equipment supply agreements and owner's budget. Items excluded by the EPC contractor do not cease to be project costs; they are assigned to another responsible party or added to the uses of funds. Contractor experience, bonding or other credit support is considered in relation to the proposed scope without substituting for legal or technical diligence.
Operating expenses are built from the actual operating plan. They may include scheduled and corrective maintenance, vegetation and pest management, module cleaning, security and monitoring, communications, land rent, property taxes, insurance, asset management, inverter or transformer reserves, grid charges and decommissioning funding. Escalators are applied according to the underlying contract rather than through one blended rate. The model also tests whether reserve funding and major component replacement occur during the debt term, since an apparently low routine maintenance budget can conceal a material future cash requirement.
Revenue depends on the point at which energy and environmental attributes are sold. A power purchase agreement is reviewed for quantity, delivery point, term, price and escalation, shape or profile obligations, settlement, curtailment, imbalance, negative pricing, force majeure, credit support, termination and assignment. Community-solar structures add subscriber acquisition, churn, replacement, billing, discounts and programme compliance. Behind-the-meter projects require a defensible host-load baseline and clear treatment of avoided charges. The study distinguishes contracted cash flow from forecast cash flow throughout.
Merchant exposure may arise after a contract expires, above or below a contracted volume, through basis differences between the node and settlement hub, or because curtailed production is uncompensated. Forward market information can inform a forecast but does not remove price, congestion or capture-rate risk. Merchant assumptions are therefore shown separately and stressed for lower realised price, increased curtailment and delayed recontracting. Offtaker credit quality, collateral requirements and replacement options matter as much as the stated tariff when the lender is relying on a long-term agreement.
Federal, state, local and utility incentives may reduce capital needs or improve cash flow, but eligibility, transferability, monetisation, timing and recapture exposure depend on project facts and current programme guidance. The study describes the relevant incentive categories in general terms, obtains the sponsor's tax and legal support for project-specific treatment and avoids counting uncertain proceeds as unrestricted cash at closing. Timing differences between expenditure and receipt are modelled because bridge funding and interest can materially affect the capital stack.
Financial feasibility links energy delivered, realised price, operating costs, reserves, financing terms and taxes into annual cash available for debt service. Coverage is tested during ramp-up and throughout the loan term, not only in a selected stabilised year. Sensitivities combine lower irradiance, degradation, curtailment, lower merchant value, construction or interconnection delay, capital-cost overrun, higher operating expense and refinancing pressure. The principal lender risks are completion, interconnection, offtaker default, resource and performance shortfall, merchant pricing, incentive timing, equipment and contractor performance, permitting, environmental liability, sponsor liquidity and concentration in a single generating asset.
When a sponsor is comparing parcels, Wert-Berater's candidate-site and market-report service can frame a separate location comparison before the project-level solar analysis. If real property value is part of collateral underwriting, a commercial real estate appraisal engagement is scoped separately from the feasibility study. Projects pursuing an SBA structure can review the SBA feasibility-study requirements service; a study is prepared when the lender or CDC determines one is appropriate under SOP standards. For an eligible rural financing route, the USDA OneRD guaranteed-loan practice addresses the applicable Agency scope and documentation. Each service answers a different underwriting question, and none substitutes for engineering, environmental or legal diligence.
Where generation is being sized against a specific computing campus rather than a merchant market, the load side of that analysis is covered in our data center feasibility study work.
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.