DE · EN
Fundamental analysis · Small caps
Detail of a turbine blade
Symbolic image · AI-generated

How we value renewable energy companies

First: which type is it?

"Renewable energy" covers two business models with almost nothing in common:

Type What the company owns Valuation
Developer / operator Assets and power purchase agreements Project DCF, EV/MW
Technology supplier Product, patents, order book as Technology

Every analysis starts with this classification. Valuing an electrolyser manufacturer with a project DCF would be as wrong as valuing a wind farm operator on EV/Revenue.

Developers: DCF at project level

The big difference from resources or biotech: the revenue is contracted. A power purchase agreement (PPA) fixes volume and price for 10 to 20 years — and what matters about it is term, price formula and indexation, offtaker credit quality, and volume and curtailment risk. "There is a PPA" says nothing without those four.

That materially lowers risk — and with it the discount rate:

Situation Discount rate
Operating asset with long-term PPA 6 – 8%
Consented project under construction 8 – 10%
Project in development 12 – 15%
Early pipeline without consent not valued, only disclosed

These ranges are our convention, not a standard — no accounting rule and no regulator prescribes them. They express the order of the risks, not a measured market rate. We state the rate used in every analysis so that it can be recalculated.

We model per project, not at group level: capacity, load hours, PPA price and term, operating costs, capital requirement, financing structure and residual value after contract expiry. Then the sum of projects, less corporate costs, less net debt.

Weighting the pipeline by maturity

Developers like to communicate a large project pipeline in gigawatts. That figure is worthless as a valuation basis until it is broken down by maturity:

Stage Weighting
Operating 100%
Under construction, financed 90%
Consented, PPA signed 70%
Consented, no PPA 40%
In permitting 15%
Early development 0% — disclosed, not valued

These weightings, too, are our convention and not a market norm. They are published so that it is clear which part of a pipeline gigawatt enters our calculation at all.

EV/MW and LCOE

EV/MW — enterprise value per megawatt of installed or secured capacity. A pure comparison metric against the peer group, never a standalone measure: it ignores load hours, PPA price and remaining term, which is to say practically all of the earnings quality. A solar park in Andalusia and one in Schleswig-Holstein have very different output at identical capacity. And MW is not MWh: across technologies and locations the multiple is only readable with load hours in mind.

How value per megawatt steps up through the maturity stages

A megawatt in an early project idea and a megawatt on the grid are not the same good. What changes between the stages is not the electricity but the probability that there will ever be any — and who carries which risk until then:

Stage How to recognise it What changes in the value
Early development Site secured, nothing else Pure option value. A substantial share of these projects is never built
Advanced Permitting under way, grid connection applied for The probability of realisation rises; the timing stays open
Ready to build Consented, grid connection granted, financed, PPA signed The big step up: an option becomes a bankable cash flow
Under construction Final investment decision taken Permitting risk gives way to construction and schedule risk
On the grid Generating and selling Full present value; the remaining risks are price, weather and availability

The two points at which value steps up sharply are consent and grid connection. Both are decisions of authorities or grid operators, not of the company.

Why no euro amounts per megawatt appear here

Market reports circulate ranges per megawatt and maturity stage. We do not reproduce them. Such figures depend on the market, the technology, grid charges, the support regime and the interest rate level of a given date; an order of magnitude from one country and one year does not transfer to another, and few of the numbers in circulation say what they rest on. We have no verifiable primary source for them — and without one we do not publish the figure. A number without a source and a date is not qualified here; it is left out.

What carries the argument is not the amount anyway, but the sequence: where in a project's life the value jumps, and why. A specific EV/MW figure belongs in the analysis of a specific company — with its peer group, its reporting date and the maturity breakdown it came from.

LCOE (levelised cost of energy) — measures competitiveness. What matters is not the absolute figure but whether it sits below the achievable market price once subsidies expire.

The hydrogen and storage exception

Most small caps in this space have no meaningful revenue. The same applies as in deeptech: there is nothing to multiply and nothing to discount.

In those cases we disclose technology readiness, order book and reference projects, cash runway and expected dilution — and state explicitly that no defensible valuation is possible. That is a more honest statement than a DCF on revenue assumed for 2032.

What this method cannot do

What we do not do

We do not value pipeline gigawatts without a maturity breakdown. We do not assume a PPA renewal at today's terms. We do not adopt a per-megawatt comparison figure for which we lack the primary source. And we do not run a DCF on hydrogen revenue that nobody has yet earned.

Sources

What changed in version 2

11 August 2026. We checked the figures on this page against the primary sources. Here the finding is less a wrong number than a missing source.

No published valuation is affected. aktienanalyse.online operates in "start without an analyst" mode: we publish neither a fair value nor price targets. Not a single valuation was issued under version 1 of this page that relied on the removed figures.


Version 2 · 11 August 2026