Renewable Energy Development — Spain | €26m Project / €19m Funding Requirement
This renewable energy finance case involved a €26M development project in Spain with a €19M external funding requirement. The programme contained several development and execution stages, meaning that not all project risk existed at the same point in time.
Case
The original funding request sought most of the external capital at the beginning of the programme. From the sponsor’s perspective, this created certainty of funds. From a financing perspective, it required capital providers to underwrite later-stage risk before earlier milestones had reduced uncertainty.
The financing question therefore became one of sequencing: should €19 million be committed at once, or should funding follow the de-risking path of the project?
Transaction Snapshot
Total project cost: €26.0m
Total external funding requirement: €19.0m
Sponsor capital: €7.0m
External funding / project cost: 73.1%
Development profile: Multi-stage / milestone driven
Assessment
The full project remained credible, but a one-step financing request concentrated permitting, construction, execution and completion risk into the first credit decision. Capital would effectively be committed before the project had reached the milestones that made later expenditure less risky.
The assessment showed that the project could be more financeable if each funding decision corresponded with a measurable reduction in project risk.
Key Pressure Points
Initial external commitment: €19.0m — Large first-step exposure
Development risk: All phases underwritten upfront — High
Capital deployment visibility: Lower before milestones — Weak
Milestone linkage: None in original request — Absent
Risk reduction over time: Not reflected in financing sequence — Inefficient
Adjustment
The project was divided into three illustrative financing phases. Total project cost and total external capital remained unchanged, but the first financing commitment was reduced materially and later funding was linked to defined milestones.
This structure allowed capital deployment to follow project progress rather than precede it.
Structuring Alternatives Considered
Option 1 — Single commitment: €19.0m external funding at outset. Maximum certainty for sponsor; maximum first-step exposure for capital.
Option 2 — Three-phase funding: €6.0m + €6.5m + €6.5m. Capital follows milestones and de-risking.
Option 3 — Partial first phase only: Finance Phase 1, then re-underwrite later phases. Lowest initial exposure, but greater execution dependency between phases.
Original vs Revised Structure
Phase 1: €9.0m cost → €6.0m external / €3.0m sponsor
Phase 2: €9.0m cost → €6.5m external / €2.5m sponsor
Phase 3: €8.0m cost → €6.5m external / €1.5m sponsor
Total: €26.0m → €19.0m external / €7.0m sponsor
Initial external commitment: €19.0m original → €6.0m revised first phase
Reduction in first-step exposure: 68.4%
Outcome
The full €19 million requirement was not rejected; it was sequenced. The first funding decision fell from €19.0 million to an illustrative €6.0 million, a 68.4% reduction in initial capital exposure, while the overall €26 million development programme remained intact.
The value of the structuring work was therefore temporal as well as financial: later capital was introduced when the project had more evidence, more completed milestones and less unresolved execution risk.
Conversation
For development projects with multiple execution stages, a focused conversation can help determine whether the capital requirement should be approached as one transaction or as a sequence of financeable phases.
FINANCING CASE ANALYSIS.
View the Assessment Process – EN | EL
Submit a Funding Assessment Request