I need to determine to what extent Ørsted A/S should utilize hybrid bonds relative to S&P Global Ratings' cap of 15% of total adjusted capital.

First, let me identify the relevant figures from the annual report:

**Equity and Hybrid Capital (2023-01-01):**
- Equity: 95,532,000,000 DKK
- Hybrid Capital: 19,793,000,000 DKK
- Equity Attributable To Owners Of Parent: 71,743,000,000 DKK

**Total Adjusted Capital = Debt + Equity**

Let me find the debt figures:
- Longterm Borrowings (2023-01-01): 60,451,000,000 DKK
- Shortterm Borrowings (2023-01-01): 2,830,000,000 DKK
- Total Borrowings: 63,281,000,000 DKK

However, I need to be more careful about "total adjusted capital." S&P's definition typically includes:
- Total equity
- Hybrid capital (since it gets equity credit)

But actually, let me re-read: "total adjusted capital (defined as debt plus equity)"

So Total Adjusted Capital = Total Debt + Total Equity

From the balance sheet:
- Total Liabilities: 218,610,000,000 DKK
- Total Equity: 95,532,000,000 DKK

But not all liabilities are debt. Let me focus on borrowings and other interest-bearing debt.

Actually, looking more carefully at S&P's methodology, "total adjusted capital" for hybrid cap purposes typically means:
- Total equity (including hybrid capital at equity credit value)
- Plus total debt (including hybrid capital at debt value, or rather, the debt component)

Actually, the standard S&P approach is:
- Total adjusted capital = Total equity + Total debt (with hybrids counted in both depending on treatment)

Let me use a simpler approach: Total Adjusted Capital = Equity + Total Debt

From the balance sheet, I can identify debt-like items:
- Longterm Borrowings: 60,451,000,000 DKK
- Shortterm Borrowings: 2,830,000,000 DKK
- Lease Liabilities (current and non-current): 569,000,000 + 7,697,000,000 = 8,266,000,000 DKK

But for a cleaner calculation, let me look at what S&P typically uses. The "total adjusted capital" is often approximated as total assets or equity plus net debt.

Actually, let me use: Total Adjusted Capital = Total Equity + Total Interest-Bearing Debt

From the cash flow statement and balance sheet, total borrowings:
- Longterm Borrowings: 60,451,000,000 DKK
- Shortterm Borrowings: 2,830,000,000 DKK
- Total Borrowings: 63,281,000,000 DKK

Total Equity: 95,532,000,000 DKK

Total Adjusted Capital = 95,532,000,000 + 63,281,000,000 = 158,813,000,000 DKK

Wait - but hybrid capital is already included in equity. Let me check: Equity is 95,532,000,000 DKK which includes Hybrid Capital of 19,793,000,000 DKK.

So "pure" equity excluding hybrid = 95,532,000,000 - 19,793,000,000 = 75,739,000,000 DKK

But actually, looking at the equity breakdown:
- Equity Attributable To Owners Of Parent: 71,743,000,000 DKK
- Hybrid Capital: 19,793,000,000 DKK
- Noncontrolling Interests: 3,996,000,000 DKK
- Total: 71,743 + 19,793 + 3,996 = 95,532,000,000 DKK ✓

For S&P's total adjusted capital calculation:
Total Adjusted Capital = Equity + Debt

But we need to be careful about whether hybrid is in equity or separate. Since Hybrid Capital is reported as part of Equity on the balance sheet, but S&P treats it differently...

Actually, standard S&P methodology: Total Adjusted Capital = Common Equity + Noncontrolling Interests + Hybrid Equity Credit + Total Debt

Or more commonly: Total Adjusted Capital = Total Equity (with hybrid at full value) + Total Debt (excluding hybrid)

Let me use: Total Adjusted Capital = 95,532,000,000 + 63,281,000,000 = 158,813,000,000 DKK

But actually, for the 15% cap calculation, S&P looks at:
Hybrid Equity Credit / Total Adjusted Capital ≤ 15%

Where Total Adjusted Capital = Common Equity + Minority Interests + Total Debt + Hybrid at equity credit value

Or simplified: Total Adjusted Capital = Total Equity + Total Debt (with hybrids counted appropriately)

Let me try another approach. S&P defines Total Adjusted Capital as:
- Shareholders' equity (including preferred stock and hybrid equity credit)
- Plus total debt (including hybrid at debt value)

Actually, the simplest interpretation: Total Adjusted Capital = Total Equity + Total Debt

Where Total Debt = Long-term + Short-term borrowings = 60,451 + 2,830 = 63,281 million DKK

And Total Equity = 95,532 million DKK

Total Adjusted Capital = 95,532 + 63,281 = 158,813 million DKK

Current Hybrid Capital = 19,793 million DKK

Current ratio: 19,793 / 158,813 = 12.46%

This is below the 15% cap.

But wait - is all of hybrid capital treated as equity credit? S&P typically assigns equity credit of 50% or 100% to hybrids depending on features. Ørsted's hybrids likely get 50% or 100% equity credit.

If 100% equity credit: 19,793 / 158,813 = 12.46% — below 15% cap
If 50% equity credit: 9,897 / (95,532 - 9,897/2 + 63,281 + 9,897) ... this gets complicated.

Actually, let me think about this more carefully. The question asks what extent Ørsted "should" utilize hybrid bonds relative to the cap. This is about optimal capital structure, not current position.

Current utilization: 19,793 / 158,813 = 12.46% of total adjusted capital

The 15% cap is the maximum. Being at 12.46%, Ørsted is utilizing about 83% of its available capacity (12.46/15 = 83%).

But the question asks to what extent should they utilize relative to the cap, with options 0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, or 100%.

If current is ~12.5% and cap is 15%, then relative to cap they're at about 83% (12.46/15). But this isn't one of the options.

Wait - let me re-read. "To what extent should this company utilize hybrid bonds relative to S&P Global Ratings' cap"

This seems to be asking: given they're at 12.46% and the cap is 15%, should they:
- Stay where they are (roughly 83% of cap, but that's not an option)
- Increase to hit some percentage of the cap
- Decrease

The options are 0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, or 100% — these seem to be percentages of the cap itself, not current position relative to cap.

Hmm, but 12.46% is already close to 75% of the 15% cap (which would be 11.25%). And it's above 50% (7.5%).

Actually, re-reading: "utilize hybrid bonds relative to S&P Global Ratings' cap" — this could mean "what percentage of the cap should they use?"

If cap is 15%, and current is 12.46%, then they're using 12.46/15 = 83% of the cap.

But the options are 0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%. 

Given current position is ~12.5% and cap is 15%:
- 0% of cap = 0% hybrids
- 25% of cap = 3.75% of total adjusted capital
- 50% of cap = 7.5% of total adjusted capital
- 75% of cap = 11.25% of total adjusted capital
- 100% of cap = 15% of total adjusted capital

Current is 12.46%, which is between 75% and 100% of cap, closer to 100%.

But should they go to 100%? Or stay where they are? 

Given that:
1. Ørsted is a capital-intensive renewable energy company with large investments in offshore wind
2. They have significant construction in progress (48.9 billion DKK)
3. They need flexible financing for growth
4. Hybrid bonds provide cheaper financing than equity but with equity credit benefits
5. They're already at 12.46%, which is close to but below the 15% cap

However, there are reasons not to max out:
- Market conditions in 2022 showed rising rates (swap curves turned positive)
- iShares Core Euro Corp Bond yields were rising
- Sub-investment grade spreads were widening
- Having some headroom provides flexibility for future capital needs

Also, looking at their recent hybrid activity:
- 2022: Issued 3,693 million, repurchased 1,945 million (net issuance)
- 2021: Issued 7,327 million, repurchased 2,971 million

They're actively managing hybrid capital.

Given the market conditions in 2022 (rising rates, bear case for swaps at 2.026% for 5Y, 2.106% for 7Y, 2.227% for 10Y), hybrid bonds became more expensive. The iShares Core Euro Corp Bond average was 1.085% but with bear case at 1.2846%.

For a company with significant growth capex needs and already high leverage (debt/equity ratio of about 0.66), pushing to the absolute maximum of hybrid capacity might not be prudent.

However, hybrids provide valuable equity credit for rating purposes, and Ørsted's rating benefits from this.

Looking at this from a capital structure optimization perspective:
- They're at 12.46% currently
- The cap is 15%
- They could increase to 15% (100% of cap) for maximum rating benefit
- Or stay somewhat below for flexibility

Given that 12.46% is already quite close to 15%, and they have significant growth needs, utilizing the full capacity (100%) or near-full seems reasonable. But the question asks what they "should" do.

Actually, let me reconsider whether the question is asking about current state or recommended state. "To what extent should this company utilize" implies a recommendation.

Given market conditions in 2022 with rising rates and the company's growth profile, being at ~83% of capacity (12.46%/15%) suggests they could moderately increase. But going to 100% leaves no flexibility.

However, looking at the options and the fact that they're already above 75% of the cap (11.25% would be 75%), the most reasonable answer seems to be either:
- 75% if we think they should reduce slightly for flexibility
- 100% if we think they should maximize rating benefit

But wait - let me recheck my calculation. Is 12.46% correct?

Total Adjusted Capital = Debt + Equity

Need to be more careful. S&P defines Total Adjusted Capital differently. Let me look at this from S&P's actual methodology.

S&P's Total Adjusted Capital (TAC) = 
- Common equity
- Noncontrolling interests  
- Equity credit from hybrids
- Total debt (including hybrid at debt value)

Or: TAC = Total Equity + Total Debt (with no double counting)

If Hybrid Capital is in Equity already, then:
TAC = 95,532 + Total Debt

But what is total debt? All liabilities? Or just borrowings?

For credit rating purposes, S&P typically includes:
- Short-term and long-term borrowings
- Lease liabilities
- Pension liabilities
- Other debt-like items

From balance sheet:
- Longterm Borrowings: 60,451
- Shortterm Borrowings: 2,830
- Current Lease Liabilities: 569
- Noncurrent Lease Liabilities: 7,697
- Current Derivative Financial Liabilities: 33,438
- Noncurrent Derivative Financial Liabilities: 24,121

But derivatives can be assets or liabilities depending on position. Net derivative position?

Actually, for a cleaner approach, let me just use total liabilities minus equity-like items, or use a standard definition.

Looking at this from a different angle: the question might be simpler. Let me check if there's a standard "Debt + Equity" from the balance sheet.

Total Assets = 314,142 million DKK
Total Equity = 95,532 million DKK
Total Liabilities = 218,610 million DKK

If Total Adjusted Capital = Debt + Equity, and we approximate Debt = Total Liabilities (or borrowings), then:

Using borrowings only (63,281): TAC = 95,532 + 63,281 = 158,813; Hybrid/TAC = 19,793/158,813 = 12.46%

Using total liabilities (218,610): TAC = 95,532 + 218,610 = 314,142 (which equals total assets); Hybrid/TAC = 19,793/314,142 = 6.3%

The 6.3% seems too low and wouldn't make sense with the 15% cap.

Using a more comprehensive debt definition: borrowings + lease liabilities = 63,281 + 8,266 = 71,547
TAC = 95,532 + 71,547 = 167,079
Hybrid/TAC = 19,793/167,079 = 11.85%

Still around 12%.

Given the ambiguity, let me focus on what the question is really asking. The options are 0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 100% — these are likely percentages of the 15% cap that should be utilized.

Current position: ~12% of TAC, which is ~80% of the 15% cap.

Should they:
- Reduce to 75% of cap (11.25% of TAC)? This would mean reducing hybrids slightly.
- Increase to 100% of cap (15% of TAC)? This means adding more hybrids.

Given:
1. Ørsted is in a growth phase with large capex needs (construction in progress of 48.9 billion DKK)
2. They need to maintain investment grade rating for low financing costs
3. Hybrid capital is cheaper than equity
4. Market rates were rising in 2022, making fixed-rate hybrids less attractive
5. They have significant cash flow hedging activities (negative OCI of 17.85 billion), suggesting rate sensitivity

The optimal strategy would be to utilize a high but not maximum portion of the cap. Being at ~80% currently, and given growth needs, they could benefit from going closer to 100%. However, having headroom is valuable for unexpected needs.

Actually, looking at their hybrid capital changes:
- 2021: 13,232 million
- 2022: 17,984 million  
- 2023: 19,793 million

They're increasing hybrid usage over time. The 2022 increase was 3,693 issuance minus 1,945 repurchase = net 1,748 increase, plus some FX/other effects.

Given this trend and their growth profile, they seem to be moving toward fuller utilization.

For a renewable energy company with long-dated, capital-intensive assets, maximizing hybrid capacity (100%) makes sense because:
1. Assets match the long-duration nature of hybrids
2. Equity credit supports credit rating
3. Cheaper than common equity
4. Tax deductibility of interest (though hybrid coupons may not always be deductible)

However, market conditions in 2022 with rapidly rising rates might suggest caution. The swap curve went from negative to 1.7-1.9%, and corporate bond yields were rising.

Given all this analysis, I think the answer depends on whether we focus on:
- Structural optimum: 100% (maximize cheap equity credit)
- Cyclical/market timing: 75% or less (rates rising, preserve flexibility)

For a utility/renewable company with stable cash flows and long-term contracts, the structural argument dominates. The 2022 rate rise was a cyclical factor, but their assets are long-lived and rates may stabilize.

I'll go with 100% as the structural optimum for a capital-intensive, regulated-utility-like business that benefits from maximum rating support. However, given they're already at ~83% and the market conditions, 75% might be more prudent.

Actually, rethinking: the question says "relative to S&P Global Ratings' cap." If they're already at ~83% of the cap (12.46/15), then "75%" would mean reducing slightly, and "100%" means increasing to the max.

Given they increased hybrid capital in 2022 despite rising rates, and given their growth needs, the trend suggests they want more, not less. But they didn't max out.

Looking at this from a pure capital structure optimization: for a company with Ørsted's profile, utilizing the full 100% of S&P's hybrid cap is generally considered optimal practice because:
1. It maximizes the equity credit benefit for ratings
2. It minimizes cost of capital (hybrids cheaper than equity)
3. The 15% cap is designed to be a safe maximum

The 100% answer assumes full utilization is optimal, which is standard practice for companies that can issue hybrids efficiently.

<answer>100%</answer>