VerdeGO — BESS Bankability, Test-Evidence Verification & GHG (Spain · SEA)

Overview

One practice, three intertwined questions on a utility-scale battery: can it be financed (P90 debt sizing), can its test evidence be trusted (FAT/SAT verification against IEC 62933 and DNV-RP-0043), and can its climate claims be verified (ISO 14064-3).

A battery asset is financed on numbers, accepted on test evidence, and reported on greenhouse gases — and the three fail together when any one of them is weak. VerdeGO works the three as one file. The situations clients bring are concrete.

Cell provenance. The grant condition, the award or the offer says the cells — or modules, PCS, EMS — come from a given origin. What evidence on the delivered hardware actually proves it, and what does a mismatch cost under the contract or the grant?

Acceptance without in-house battery engineering. FAT or SAT sign-off is due, the evidence arrives as controller screenshots and chart exports nobody independently reads, and the warranty clock starts at SAT whether or not a baseline was recorded.

Degradation and warranty, years later. A capacity claim with no t=0 record to argue from, and state-of-health figures from the vendor's own algorithm offered as proof.

Lender or buyer diligence. Is this test evidence sufficient to finance or acquire against — and what exactly is missing, stated as a gap list against IEC 62933 and DNV-RP-0043 rather than as an opinion.

Climate claims. An emissions assertion that has to survive an independent verifier.

In each case the work looks the same: evidence is bound to hardware identity, a t=0 baseline is fixed before the warranty clock starts, and findings are delivered as a gap register citing the applicable clause — IEC 62933-2-1 and TS 62933-2-3, DNV-RP-0043, UL 9540, ISO 14064-3.

On the financing side, VerdeGO is a parameter-driven, bankability-grade feasibility model built for a long-term financing decision rather than a headline IRR: debt sized on P90 cashflows with DSCR and LLCR covenants tested every year, four offtake structures compared — merchant, hybrid stack, tolling and floor-PPA — and the maximum-safe CAPEX each structure can bear back-solved against live vendor pricing, with an IFRS layer covering IAS 36 impairment, IAS 37 decommissioning and revenue recognition by contract type. The degradation and augmentation assumptions in the model are the same quantities the verification work baselines — one number set, not two.

The framework's decisive insight stands: the identical asset is financeable for a utility and unfinanceable for a private fund — a cost-of-capital divergence, not an engineering one, which reframes the utility as both competitor and most likely offtaker or exit.