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.
Wind feasibility is resource certainty under contract discipline: the wind-resource assessment and its measurement basis, P50 versus P90 production spread, turbine technology and availability assumptions, PPA or merchant revenue position, and the interconnection and transmission path. Community-scale and distributed wind projects are evaluated against the specific load or offtake they serve.
The analysis reviews met-tower or remote-sensing resource data, production modeling, interconnection studies, and contract terms, with capital and operating benchmarks by turbine class. Coverage is tested at P90 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 wind energy feasibility study is not a resource report repackaged as a lending document. It is a structured credit analysis that begins where the resource assessment ends — translating megawatt-hour projections into bankable revenue, testing that revenue against a capital stack, and delivering a documented coverage conclusion. The scope is built around the specific turbine configuration, site, and offtake arrangement under review.
Wind energy feasibility studies require a demand analysis that differs materially from conventional commercial real estate or retail studies. The question is not foot traffic or population density — it is whether a buyer exists for the power at a price that supports the debt, and whether the grid can physically accept the output.
Offtake analysis begins with the power purchase agreement or, where no PPA exists, with a review of the relevant wholesale market: nodal or zonal price history, basis differentials between the project delivery point and the liquid hub, and forward curve shape. Where a utility or cooperative is the counterparty, its integrated resource plan, renewable procurement targets, and existing contracted capacity are reviewed against publicly available filings and commission orders.
Interconnection demand is assessed through the applicable transmission operator's public interconnection queue, which identifies competing projects by fuel type, capacity, and queue position ahead of the subject project. Curtailment history on the relevant transmission path is drawn from FERC-jurisdictional operator reports and, where available, state public utility commission proceedings.
For community wind or distributed projects serving a specific load, the analysis shifts to the host utility's tariff structure, net metering or virtual net metering rules, and the load profile of the offtaking entity. State renewable portfolio standard compliance schedules and renewable energy credit registry data are reviewed to assess whether incremental supply finds a natural buyer without merchant price risk.
Four inputs move the debt-service coverage ratio in a wind project model more than any others. Each is tested explicitly rather than accepted at face value, and each is subjected to the sensitivity ranges built into every Wert-Berater engagement.
SBA, USDA, and conventional lenders each bring a distinct lens to wind project underwriting, but they share a common concern: whether the revenue stream is real, contracted, and sufficient to cover debt service under a stress case the borrower did not choose.
Under SBA SOP 50 10 8, the operating coverage minimum of 1.15x and global coverage minimum of 1.00x apply to the project as modeled at P90 production. SBA lenders are particularly attentive to whether the feasibility study is prepared by an independent party with no contingent fee — a requirement the SOP makes explicit. The study must document the basis for every revenue and cost assumption, and the analyst must be able to defend the conclusion without revision under pressure.
USDA REAP engagements require energy-production documentation, an incentive analysis, and a simple payback calculation in addition to the standard coverage work. The Business & Industry program applies its own coverage and collateral standards, and the feasibility study must address both the project economics and the borrower's broader financial position where a global analysis is required.
Conventional lenders typically require 1.20x coverage and place particular weight on the interconnection agreement status, the creditworthiness of the PPA counterparty, and the remaining term of the offtake contract relative to the loan maturity. An independent study that addresses interconnection and offtake risk directly — rather than footnoting them as assumptions — reduces the likelihood of conditions or re-underwriting requests after initial submission.
Every engagement begins with a fixed, quoted fee delivered within one business day of the initial inquiry. 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 policy preference — it is the condition under which an independent conclusion is possible.
The data room drives the timeline. Standard delivery is ten to fifteen business days from receipt of a complete data room. For wind projects, a complete data room includes the independent energy assessment, the interconnection study or signed interconnection agreement, the PPA or offtake term sheet, the long-term service agreement or maintenance budget, the land lease, the project cost breakdown by category, and the borrower's financial statements. Rush delivery is available when the data room is complete at engagement.
Once the engagement opens, the financial model is built as a fully linked Excel workbook with no hardcoded values. Every revenue, cost, and financing input is a discrete cell that a reviewer can change. The model is published to a secure client portal where it remains live: if the lender or agency wants to run a different production assumption or a higher interest rate, the model recalculates without a revision request.
The deliverable set is a bound narrative report and the linked model, with the ten-year pro forma, sensitivity tables, interest-rate stress, ratio analysis benchmarked against RMA and IBISWorld data, and an explicit statement of conditions. The conditions statement identifies what must remain true for the coverage conclusion to hold — a feature that credit officers and agency reviewers use directly in their own write-ups.
The fee is fixed and quoted within one business day of the initial inquiry. It does not vary based on the study's finding, and no portion is contingent on loan approval. Because wind projects require review of resource data, interconnection documents, and offtake contracts in addition to the standard financial model, the scope — and therefore the fee — reflects that additional complexity. Contact the firm with a project summary for a same-day quote.
Standard delivery is ten to fifteen business days from receipt of a complete data room. For wind projects, completeness means the independent energy assessment, interconnection study or signed agreement, PPA or term sheet, long-term service agreement, land lease, cost breakdown, and borrower financials are all in hand. Rush delivery is available. Incomplete data rooms are the most common cause of delays, not the analysis itself.
Three factors distinguish wind underwriting from most other clean-energy project types: the P50-to-P90 production spread can be wide enough to move coverage below threshold on its own; interconnection cost estimates carry material variance until a signed agreement is in place; and merchant or partially merchant revenue positions introduce nodal price and curtailment risk that a PPA eliminates. Each must be addressed in the study rather than assumed away.
Yes. P50 represents median expected annual production; P90 represents the level exceeded ninety percent of the time — the conservative case lenders fund against. Coverage must clear the applicable threshold at P90, not P50. The study presents both, documents the spread, and applies sensitivity analysis across the full range so the lender can see exactly where coverage breaks.
A single study can be structured to meet both standards, but the REAP requirements add specific elements — energy-production documentation, an incentive analysis, and a simple payback calculation — that a purely conventional study may omit. Wert-Berater structures wind engagements to satisfy the most demanding applicable standard so the same document serves every reviewing party without supplemental requests.
At minimum: the interconnection feasibility study, the system impact study if completed, and the signed interconnection agreement if one exists. The study distinguishes clearly between a signed agreement with a fixed network upgrade cost allocation and an early-stage estimate still subject to restudy. That distinction matters because unresolved interconnection cost variance is one of the conditions most likely to generate a lender exception or agency question.
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.