I'll work through this step-by-step for ØRSTED A/S.

## Step 1: Identify the Relevant Industry

ØRSTED A/S is a renewable energy company primarily engaged in offshore wind power generation, onshore wind, solar, and bioenergy. Based on the descriptions provided:

- **Regulated Utilities**: Not applicable - Ørsted is not a rate-regulated utility with cost-of-service regulation
- **Oil and Gas E&P**: Not applicable
- **Unregulated Power And Gas**: **Most applicable** - Ørsted is a renewable power generation company with long-term PPAs, merchant exposure, and unregulated market activities. The methodology states: "Unregulated power and gas companies, such as renewable generation companies, don't benefit from protective rate regulation. However, they may benefit from policy support and gain competitive strength from fixed-price or feed-in tariffs, or from long-term contractual arrangements with creditworthy off-takers."
- **Transportation Infrastructure**: Not applicable

I'll apply the **Unregulated Power And Gas** methodology, with general corporate baseline formulas where the industry guidance doesn't specify modifications.

## Step 2: Estimate Adjusted_EBITDA

From the facts, I can use the reported EBITDA or reconstruct it:
- "Profit Loss From Operating Activities Before Interest Taxes Depreciation And Amortisation Expense" (EBITDA) 2022: **32,057,000,000 DKK**

Let me verify by reconstruction:
- Revenue: 132,277,000,000
- Cost Of Sales: -97,163,000,000
- Other External Expenses: -7,049,000,000
- Employee Benefits Expense: -5,278,000,000
- Other Income: +14,119,000,000
- Share Of Profit Loss Of Associates And Joint Ventures Core Business: +114,000,000
- Other Expense By Nature: -4,963,000,000

Operating profit before D&A = 132,277 - 97,163 - 7,049 - 5,278 + 14,119 + 114 - 4,963 = 32,057,000,000 ✓

For **Unregulated Power And Gas**, I need to check for adjustments:
- **Leases**: The industry methodology mentions PPAs but doesn't specifically require lease adjustments to EBITDA. Under general corporate methodology, operating leases may need to be added back if they were expensed.
- Looking at the cash flow statement, "Payments Of Lease Liabilities Classified As Financing Activities" = 582,000,000 DKK. This suggests IFRS 16 is applied, so leases are already capitalized and depreciation is included in D&A, not in EBITDA.

From the EBITDA figure given, it appears to be pre-IFRS 16 lease expense or already properly calculated. Given "Profit Loss From Operating Activities Before Interest Taxes Depreciation And Amortisation Expense" is explicitly provided, I'll use this as the base.

Checking for nonrecurring items:
- "Gains Losses On Disposals Of Investments": 331,000,000 DKK (gain) - this is non-core/nonrecurring
- "Other Expense By Nature" increased significantly from 386M to 4,963M - this may include nonrecurring items

However, for S&P purposes, gains/losses on disposals of investments are typically treated as nonrecurring. The 331M gain should be subtracted.

Also, "Share Of Profit Loss Of Associates And Joint Ventures Accounted For Using Equity Method Non Core Business" = 40,000,000 DKK gain - this is non-core and should be excluded.

For **joint ventures in core business**: The core business share of profit = 114,000,000 DKK. For proportional consolidation, S&P may add back the equity method income and replace with proportional EBITDA. However, without detailed JV financials, I'll use the equity method income as is (it's already in EBITDA).

Let me check if there are pension adjustments - no pension data is provided in the facts.

**Adjusted_EBITDA calculation:**
- Base EBITDA: 32,057,000,000
- Less: Gains on disposals of investments (nonrecurring): -331,000,000
- Less: Non-core JV income: -40,000,000

Adjusted_EBITDA = 32,057,000,000 - 331,000,000 - 40,000,000 = **31,686,000,000 DKK**

Wait - let me re-check. The EBITDA figure includes "Share Of Profit Loss Of Associates And Joint Ventures Accounted For Using Equity Method Core Business" = 114,000,000. For S&P, when using proportional EBITDA for JVs, we would add back equity method income and include proportional share. Without JV financial details, I'll use reported EBITDA with equity method income included.

Actually, re-reading: The EBITDA is "Profit Loss From Operating Activities Before Interest Taxes Depreciation And Amortisation Expense" which equals Operating Profit + D&A. This includes the equity method income.

For nonrecurring items:
- "Gains Losses On Disposals Of Investments" = 331,000,000 (this is after EBITDA, in the P&L below operating profit)
- "Share Of Profit Loss Of Associates And Joint Ventures Accounted For Using Equity Method Non Core Business" = 40,000,000 (also below operating profit)

These items are **below** operating profit, so they're **not in EBITDA**. Let me recalculate:

Operating Profit (EBIT) = 19,774,000,000
D&A = 12,283,000,000
EBITDA = 32,057,000,000

The items below operating profit:
- Gains Losses On Disposals Of Investments: 331,000,000
- Share Of Profit Loss Of Associates Non Core: 40,000,000
- Finance Income: 15,514,000,000
- Finance Costs: -18,050,000,000

These don't affect EBITDA. So EBITDA is clean of these items.

However, "Other Expense By Nature" jumped from 386M to 4,963M. This could include nonrecurring items. Without specific identification, I'll use reported EBITDA but note this risk.

For **Other Income** = 14,119,000,000 - this is quite large and increased from 10,185M. This could include gains on disposals or other nonrecurring items. Looking at cash flow: "Adjustments For Losses Gains On Disposal Of Noncurrent Assets" = -10,885,000,000 (negative means gain). This suggests significant gains on disposal are included in operating profit/EBITDA.

The cash flow adjustment "Adjustments For Losses Gains On Disposal Of Noncurrent Assets" = -10,885,000,000 indicates gains of 10,885,000,000 were deducted in the income statement (hence negative adjustment to add back to cash flow). But wait, this is in operating cash flow reconciliation, so these gains were in operating profit.

Actually, looking more carefully: "Other Income" = 14,119,000,000. The cash flow shows "Adjustments For Losses Gains On Disposal Of Noncurrent Assets" = -10,885,000,000. This suggests that gains on disposal of 10,885M were included in profit and need to be removed for cash flow purposes.

But where are these gains? "Gains Losses On Disposals Of Investments" is only 331M. The 10,885M must be in "Other Income" or elsewhere in operating profit.

For S&P purposes, gains on disposal of noncurrent assets are typically nonrecurring and should be excluded from EBITDA.

**Adjusted_EBITDA = 32,057,000,000 - 10,885,000,000 = 21,172,000,000 DKK**

Wait - but "Gains Losses On Disposals Of Investments" is 331M, and the adjustment is 10,885M. The difference might be gains on disposal of property plant and equipment (not investments). Let me check if this is in EBITDA or below.

Actually, re-reading: "Adjustments For Losses Gains On Disposal Of Noncurrent Assets" in cash flow reconciliation adjusts profit to operating cash flow. This means the gains were included in "Profit Loss" (net income), not necessarily in operating profit/EBITDA.

Let me trace through: Profit Loss = 14,996,000,000. The cash flow starts from here and adds back various items.

But wait - the cash flow statement shows "Cash Flows From Used In Operating Activities" = 11,924,000,000, and the reconciliation starts from Profit Loss.

Actually, looking at standard cash flow presentation: Operating cash flow typically starts with profit before tax, not net income. But here it seems to start from "Profit Loss" (net income).

Let me look more carefully at what's in EBITDA. "Other Income" = 14,119,000,000 is quite large. This likely includes gains on disposals.

For S&P adjusted EBITDA, I should normalize by removing nonrecurring gains. Given the cash flow adjustment of -10,885M for gains on disposal, and this is a negative adjustment (meaning gain was deducted from profit to get to cash flow, i.e., gain was in profit), I need to assess if this was in operating profit.

In IFRS, gains on disposal of PP&E can be in operating profit or below depending on classification. Given Ørsted's business (selling wind farms is part of operations), some gains might be operating.

However, for credit analysis, S&P wants sustainable cash flows. Large asset sale gains are nonrecurring.

Let me use a more conservative approach: **Adjusted_EBITDA = Reported EBITDA - material nonrecurring gains**

Given the magnitude, I'll adjust for the 10,885M gains on disposal:
Adjusted_EBITDA = 32,057,000,000 - 10,885,000,000 = **21,172,000,000 DKK**

But I need to verify this is correct. Let me also consider if there are other adjustments.

Actually, re-looking: The "Adjustments For Losses Gains On Disposal Of Noncurrent Assets" of -10,885M in cash flow means we subtract gains (or add losses). If this is in the operating section, it means gains were included in the starting profit figure and we remove them to get to cash-based operating profit.

For EBITDA, if these gains were in "Other Income" and part of operating profit, they should be removed for adjusted EBITDA.

However, I want to be more precise. Let me check if "Other Income" includes these gains. "Other Income" increased from 10,185M to 14,119M, an increase of 3,934M. But the disposal gains adjustment is 10,885M. This doesn't match well.

Perhaps the 10,885M includes both operating and non-operating items, or perhaps it's the net of many transactions.

Given uncertainty, let me also consider an alternative: use reported EBITDA with minimal adjustments, only clearly identifiable nonrecurring items.

Actually, for S&P ratings, they typically make adjustments based on their own analysis. Given the information, I'll:

1. Use reported EBITDA: 32,057,000,000
2. Subtract clearly nonrecurring gains: 331M (disposals of investments) + 40M (non-core JV) = 371M
3. But these are below operating profit, so not in EBITDA

For items in EBITDA, the "Other Expense By Nature" spike is concerning. But without knowing the composition, I'll use reported EBITDA as base.

However, the cash flow adjustment of -10,885M for disposal gains suggests significant gains in profit. Since EBITDA is before this, and these gains are likely in or near operating profit...

Let me try a different approach: reconstruct "clean" EBITDA from core operations.

Revenue: 132,277M
Cost of sales: -97,163M
Other external expenses: -7,049M
Employee benefits: -5,278M
Core operating contribution: 22,787M

Add: Other Income 14,119M → but this includes gains
Add: Core business JV income 114M
Less: Other expense by nature -4,963M

This gives 32,057M EBITDA.

If Other Income includes 10,885M of disposal gains, then core Other Income is 14,119 - 10,885 = 3,234M, and "clean" EBITDA would be 22,787 + 3,234 + 114 - 4,963 = 21,172M.

This matches my earlier calculation. I'll use **Adjusted_EBITDA = 21,172,000,000 DKK**

But wait - I need to check if this is too aggressive. Let me verify with another approach.

Looking at 2021: EBITDA was 24,296M. The 2022 increase to 32,057M is 32% increase. Revenue increased 70% (77,673 to 132,277). Cost of sales increased 83%. The margin expansion seems partly due to Other Income growth.

Actually, for renewable energy companies, selling developed assets (farm-downs) is part of the business model. Ørsted regularly sells stakes in wind farms. These are somewhat recurring but lumpy.

For S&P credit analysis, they typically want to exclude lumpy farm-down gains to assess sustainable cash flow generation.

Given the methodology for Unregulated Power and Gas mentions "When assessing the profitability of companies engaged in trading activity or more-frequent, event-driven activity---for example, where asset acquisitions or divestitures, which can distort margins, are part of the business strategy---we generally use the ROC."

This suggests S&P is aware of distortions from asset sales.

I'll proceed with **Adjusted_EBITDA = 21,172,000,000 DKK** (removing the 10,885M disposal gains).

Actually, let me reconsider once more. The cash flow adjustment is "Adjustments For Losses Gains On Disposal Of Noncurrent Assets" = -10,885M. This is in the reconciliation of profit to operating cash flow. 

In standard presentation, this means:
Profit (14,996M) 
- 10,885M (remove gains on disposal)
+ other adjustments
= Operating cash flow before working capital (11,924M before WC changes, or part of it)

So yes, the 10,885M gain was in profit. Was it in EBITDA? Gains on disposal of noncurrent assets are typically below EBITDA (in EBIT or pre-tax). Wait - disposal of PP&E is typically in operating profit under IFRS if it's part of normal operations, or as separate line item.

Actually, in IFRS, gains on disposal of PP&E are typically presented as part of operating profit or as separate line items. Given Ørsted's business model, farm-downs might be in "Other Income."

Let me assume the 10,885M is in EBITDA and adjust for it.

**Adjusted_EBITDA = 32,057,000,000 - 10,885,000,000 = 21,172,000,000 DKK**

## Step 3: Estimate FFO

Baseline formula: FFO = Adjusted_EBITDA - cash_interest - cash_taxes

From the cash flow statement:
- "Interest Paid Classified As Operating Activities" = 8,548,000,000 DKK (this is cash interest)
- "Income Taxes Paid Classified As Operating Activities" = 1,263,000,000 DKK (this is cash taxes)

However, for S&P FFO, we use **cash interest paid** and **cash taxes paid** from operations.

FFO = 21,172,000,000 - 8,548,000,000 - 1,263,000,000 = **11,361,000,000 DKK**

Wait - I need to check if there are adjustments for the industry. For Unregulated Power and Gas, the methodology doesn't specify FFO formula modifications. 

But I need to verify: Is the interest paid in operating activities the right measure? In IFRS, interest can be classified as operating or financing. Here it's in operating.

Also, I should check if we need to add back dividends received or other items. The baseline formula is FFO = Adjusted_EBITDA - cash_interest - cash_taxes.

However, S&P sometimes defines FFO as: Funds from operations = net income + depreciation + amortization + deferred taxes + other non-cash items - working capital changes... No, that's operating cash flow.

Actually, S&P FFO is typically: EBITDA - cash interest - cash taxes. This is a simplified approximation of sustainable cash flow generation.

Let me verify with another approach using the cash flow statement:
Operating cash flow = 11,924,000,000

This includes working capital changes and other items. FFO is typically higher than operating cash flow because working capital investments reduce operating cash flow but FFO excludes working capital changes.

Actually, standard S&P FFO = Net income + D&A + deferred taxes + other non-cash charges - gains on asset sales + other adjustments - cash interest? No, that's confusing.

Let me use the standard definition: **FFO = Adjusted EBITDA - cash interest - cash taxes**

This gives: 21,172 - 8,548 - 1,263 = **11,361,000,000 DKK**

But wait - I should also consider if we need to add back dividends from JVs or other items. The core business JV income of 114M is already in EBITDA (equity method). For FFO, we typically want cash dividends received, not equity income.

From cash flow: "Dividends Received And Capital Reduction Classified As Investing Activities" = 23M. This is in investing, not operating.

For S&P FFO, if equity income is in EBITDA but cash dividends are different, we might adjust. But the baseline formula uses EBITDA as starting point, so equity income is included.

Actually, let me reconsider the FFO calculation. S&P sometimes calculates FFO from net income:
FFO = Net income + D&A + deferred taxes + other non-cash items - nonrecurring gains + other adjustments

From the facts:
- Net income: 14,996M
- D&A: 12,283M
- Deferred tax: Need to calculate from balance sheet or use tax expense

Deferred tax assets increased from 13,281M to 13,719M, so change is 438M. Deferred tax liabilities increased from 5,616M to 7,414M, so change is 1,798M. Net deferred tax liability increase = 1,798 - 438 = 1,360M (expense).

Income tax expense = 2,613M. Cash taxes paid = 1,263M. So deferred tax expense = 2,613 - 1,263 = 1,350M. Close to 1,360M.

FFO from net income approach:
= 14,996 + 12,283 + 1,350 - 10,885 (gains on disposal) + other adjustments...

This gets complicated. Let me stick with the EBITDA approach: FFO = Adjusted EBITDA - cash interest - cash taxes = 21,172 - 8,548 - 1,263 = **11,361,000,000 DKK**

But I need to check: should I use "Interest Paid Classified As Operating Activities" (8,548M) or total finance costs (18,050M)? S&P uses cash interest paid, which is 8,548M.

Also, should I include interest received? The baseline formula is EBITDA - cash interest - cash taxes. Interest received is typically excluded (or it's already in EBITDA as finance income, but we started from EBITDA which excludes finance items below operating profit).

Actually, wait - EBITDA is "Before Interest Taxes Depreciation And Amortisation" - so finance income and costs are below EBITDA. So EBITDA excludes interest received and paid.

For FFO = EBITDA - cash interest - cash taxes, we don't add interest received.

However, some S&P methodologies use: FFO = EBITDA - cash interest - cash taxes + interest received (if in operating activities). But the baseline says - cash interest - cash taxes.

Actually, looking at S&P's standard corporate methodology, FFO typically includes interest received if it's operating. Let me check: "Interest Received Classified As Operating Activities" = 7,985M.

If we include interest received: FFO = 21,172 - 8,548 + 7,985 - 1,263 = 19,346M. This seems high.

Actually, S&P's standard definition is: FFO = funds from operations = net cash from operating activities excluding working capital changes, or equivalently EBITDA - cash interest - cash taxes.

But in some versions, FFO = operating cash flow before working capital changes = EBITDA - cash interest - cash taxes + dividends received - other items.

I think the cleanest is: **FFO = Adjusted_EBITDA - cash_interest - cash_taxes = 21,172 - 8,548 - 1,263 = 11,361,000,000 DKK**

But let me cross-check: Operating cash flow = 11,924M. This includes working capital changes. FFO should be higher than operating cash flow if working capital was a use, or lower if working capital was a source.

Working capital changes from cash flow:
- Inventories: +1,419M (source)
- Contract assets/liabilities: -1,303M (use)
- Trade receivables: -2,875M (use)
- Other operating receivables: +2,742M (source)
- Trade payables: +3,886M (source)
- Tax equity partner liabilities: -353M (use)
- Other operating payables: -38M (use)
- Provisions: -1,935M (use, from "Adjustments For Provisions")

Net working capital change: 1,419 - 1,303 - 2,875 + 2,742 + 3,886 - 353 - 38 - 1,935 = 2,543M (source)

So operating cash flow before working capital = 11,924 - 2,543 = 9,381M? No wait, if working capital is a source, we subtract to get pre-working-capital cash flow.

Actually: Operating CF = Profit + non-cash items + working capital changes
= 14,996 - 10,885 + 12,283 - 8,687 + 1,935 - 278 + 1,419 - 1,303 - 2,875 + 2,742 + 3,886 - 353 - 38 + 7,985 - 8,548 - 1,263

Let me verify: 14,996 - 10,885 = 4,111; +12,283 = 16,394; -8,687 = 7,707... this gets messy with "Change In Derivatives Other Adjustments" = -8,687M.

Actually, let me just use the EBITDA-based FFO as specified in the instructions: **FFO = Adjusted_EBITDA - cash_interest - cash_taxes**

FFO = 21,172,000,000 - 8,548,000,000 - 1,263,000,000 = **11,361,000,000 DKK**

Hmm, but this seems low compared to operating cash flow of 11,924M. Let me reconsider if my Adjusted_EBITDA is too low.

If I used unadjusted EBITDA = 32,057M:
FFO = 32,057 - 8,548 - 1,263 = 22,246M

This is higher than operating cash flow, which makes sense because working capital changes and other items would reduce it.

Given the ambiguity, let me also consider: should I adjust EBITDA less aggressively? The 10,885M might include normal course farm-downs that are somewhat recurring.

For Ørsted, farm-downs are a core part of the business model - they develop wind farms and sell stakes to reduce risk and recycle capital. If we exclude all gains, we might understate sustainable cash flow.

However, for credit analysis, S&P typically wants to assess the underlying operational cash generation, excluding lumpy asset sales.

Let me check Ørsted's historical pattern: 2021 disposal gains adjustment was -7,920M. So this is recurring in the sense that they regularly do farm-downs, but the amount varies.

For a conservative credit assessment, I'll use the adjusted figure but note this is debatable.

Actually, re-reading the problem: it asks for "S&P-adjusted" ratios following S&P guidelines. S&P does adjust for nonrecurring and non-operating items.

Given that, and that farm-down gains are lumpy and non-operational in nature (they're financial/structural transactions, not power generation operations), I'll exclude them.

**FFO = 11,361,000,000 DKK**

But I want to double-check one thing. The baseline formula says "FFO = Adjusted_EBITDA - cash_interest - cash_taxes". Should cash taxes be based on tax expense or taxes paid?

Cash taxes paid = 1,263M (from cash flow)
Tax expense = 2,613M

S&P uses cash taxes paid, not tax expense. So 1,263M is correct.

## Step 4: Estimate Adjusted_Debt

Baseline formula: Adjusted_Debt = (reported_debt + leases + pension_deficit + guarantees + hybrid_debt_portion + other_debt_like_items) - eligible_cash

First, identify reported debt:
- "Longterm Borrowings" 2023-01-01: 60,451,000,000
- "Shortterm Borrowings" 2023-01-01: 2,830,000,000
- Total reported debt = 63,281,000,000 DKK

Wait - I need to check the date. The question asks for 2022 fiscal year ended Dec 31, 2022. The balance sheet dates are 2023-01-01 and 2022-01-01. In IFRS annual reports, the closing balance for 2022 would be 2023-01-01 (or stated as Dec 31, 2022). Let me use 2023-01-01 as year-end 2022.

Actually, looking more carefully: "2023-01-01" is likely the balance at start of 2023, which is end of 2022. And "2022-01-01" is start of 2022. So yes, use 2023-01-01 for year-end 2022.

Reported debt:
- Longterm Borrowings: 60,451,000,000
- Shortterm Borrowings: 2,830,000,000
- Total: 63,281,000,000

Leases:
- "Noncurrent Lease Liabilities": 7,697,000,000
- "Current Lease Liabilities": 569,000,000
- Total leases: 8,266,000,000

But wait - under IFRS 16, these are already in debt? Or are they separate? Looking at the balance sheet, lease liabilities are listed separately from borrowings. So they're not in "Longterm Borrowings" or "Shortterm Borrowings."

However, S&P treats lease liabilities as debt-like obligations. So I need to add them.

But actually, looking at the structure: "Longterm Borrowings" and "Shortterm Borrowings" might already include some lease liabilities, or they might not. The separate listing suggests they're not included.

For S&P adjustments: Add lease liabilities to debt.

Pension deficit: No pension liability data is provided in the facts. There are "Noncurrent Provisions" and "Current Provisions" but these don't appear to be pension-specific. I'll assume no pension deficit adjustment needed.

Guarantees: No specific guarantee data provided.

Hybrid debt portion: "Hybrid Capital" = 19,793,000,000. S&P typically treats hybrid capital as 50% debt and 50% equity, or sometimes 100% debt depending on features. The standard is to treat hybrid capital as partially debt.

Looking at S&P methodology: For hybrid instruments, S&P typically includes the debt-like portion. For "Hybrid Capital" that's classified as equity, S&P may reclassify a portion to debt. The standard treatment is 50% or based on specific features.

Given the facts show "Hybrid Capital" as part of equity (19,793M in equity section), and S&P typically treats 50% of hybrid capital as debt for leverage calculations:

Hybrid debt portion = 19,793,000,000 × 50% = 9,896,500,000

Or, if S&P views it as 100% debt-like: 19,793,000,000

Actually, for FFO/debt, S&P's standard treatment of hybrid capital is to include 50% as debt. Let me use 50%.

Other debt-like items:
- "Non Current Tax Equity Liabilities" = 14,490,000,000 - this looks like tax equity partner liabilities, which are debt-like
- "Current Tax Equity Liabilities" = 1,903,000,000
- Total tax equity liabilities: 16,393,000,000

Tax equity is a form of financing where investors receive tax benefits. These are typically debt-like obligations.

Also: "Noncurrent Contract Liabilities" = 3,085,000,000 and "Current Contract Liabilities" = 2,269,000,000. These are deferred revenue, not debt-like.

"Other Noncurrent Payables" = 7,363,000,000 - need to assess if debt-like.

For the Unregulated Power and Gas methodology, it mentions: "For unregulated power and gas companies that enter into long-term power purchase agreements (PPAs), we make adjustments to account for those obligations, as we do for regulated utilities under our ratios and adjustments criteria."

However, no specific PPA debt-like obligation data is provided.

Tax equity liabilities are definitely debt-like - they're financial obligations to tax equity partners.

Let me include tax equity liabilities as debt-like.

Also, looking at derivatives: "Noncurrent Derivative Financial Liabilities" = 24,121,000,000 and "Current Derivative Financial Liabilities" = 33,438,000,000. These are fair value of derivatives, not notional amounts. S&P typically doesn't include derivative fair values as debt (they're mark-to-market, not obligations to pay).

However, for energy companies, S&P sometimes makes adjustments for trading/derivatives. But these are typically working capital items, not debt.

Eligible cash:
- "Cash" = 16,178,000,000
- "Current Financial Assets At Fair Value Through Profit Or Loss Classified As Held For Trading" = 25,197,000,000

S&P typically considers cash and liquid investments as eligible cash. The held-for-trading financial assets might be liquid or might be collateral. Let me check if they're restricted.

Actually, looking at the cash flow: "Collateral Posted In Relation To Trading Of Derivatives Classified As Financing Activities" = 48,885M and "Collateral Released" = 52,143M. This suggests significant collateral movements.

The "Current Financial Assets At Fair Value Through Profit Or Loss Classified As Held For Trading" = 25,197M might include collateral posted.

For S&P, eligible cash typically excludes restricted cash. Without knowing the exact restriction, I'll be conservative and only include "Cash" as eligible cash: 16,178,000,000.

Actually, let me also consider "Current Derivative Financial Assets" = 23,433,000,000 - these are receivables from derivatives, not cash.

Let me calculate Adjusted_Debt:

Reported debt: 63,281,000,000
+ Leases: 8,266,000,000
+ Hybrid debt portion (50%): 9,896,500,000
+ Tax equity liabilities: 16,393,000,000
= 97,836,500,000

Less eligible cash: 16,178,000,000

Adjusted_Debt = 97,836,500,000 - 16,178,000,000 = **81,658,500,000 DKK**

Wait - I need to reconsider the hybrid treatment. Let me check S&P's standard more carefully.

For hybrid capital, S&P's treatment depends on the instrument's features. The facts show "Coupon Payments On Hybrid Capital" = 529M and "Tax On Coupon Payments" = -13M. These are treated like dividends/interest.

S&P typically treats hybrid capital as 50% debt and 50% equity if it has equity-like features (deferrable coupons, perpetual, etc.). Given it's called "Hybrid Capital" and is in equity, it likely has equity characteristics.

However, for FFO/debt specifically, S&P sometimes includes 100% of hybrid as debt for the denominator and adds back hybrid coupons to FFO for the numerator.

Actually, let me reconsider: In the FFO calculation, should I add back hybrid coupons?

From the facts: "Profit Loss Attributable To Hybrid Capital Owners" = 577M. This is like a dividend/interest payment to hybrid holders.

In FFO calculation, if we start from net income available to common, we add back preferred dividends. But I started from EBITDA, so this is already pre-hybrid distribution.

Actually, EBITDA is before interest and taxes, so it's before any hybrid coupon (which is treated as dividend from equity, not interest expense, since it's in equity).

For FFO = EBITDA - cash interest - cash taxes, the hybrid coupon is not in EBITDA (it's a distribution of profit, not an expense). So no adjustment needed.

For debt, I'll use 50% of hybrid as debt-like: 9,896,500,000.

But wait - I should also check if tax equity is already in debt. Looking at the balance sheet structure:
- Noncurrent Liabilities include: Deferred Tax, Noncurrent Provisions, Noncurrent Lease Liabilities, Longterm Borrowings, Noncurrent Derivative Financial Liabilities, Noncurrent Contract Liabilities, Non Current Tax Equity Liabilities, Other Noncurrent Payables

"Non Current Tax Equity Liabilities" is separate from borrowings. So it's not in reported debt.

Similarly, "Current Tax Equity Liabilities" is separate from "Shortterm Borrowings."

So tax equity liabilities should be added.

Let me also check "Other Noncurrent Payables" = 7,363M and "Other Current Payables" = 7,518M. Are these debt-like? They might be normal operating payables, or they might include debt-like items. Without more detail, I'll exclude them.

Also, what about "Noncurrent Provisions" = 19,121M and "Current Provisions" = 585M? These are likely decommissioning, environmental, etc. S&P sometimes treats certain provisions as debt-like, but typically not for FFO/debt.

Let me reconsider my Adjusted_Debt calculation. Actually, I want to check if I'm double-counting leases. Under IFRS 16, lease liabilities are already recognized. Are they in "Longterm Borrowings" or separate?

Looking at the line items, "Noncurrent Lease Liabilities" and "Current Lease Liabilities" are separate from "Longterm Borrowings" and "Shortterm Borrowings." This suggests leases are not in reported borrowings.

However, some companies include lease liabilities within borrowings. The separate presentation suggests they're not included.

To be safe, I'll add lease liabilities.

**Adjusted_Debt = 63,281 + 8,266 + 9,896.5 + 16,393 - 16,178 = 81,658,500,000 DKK**

Let me also consider an alternative: what if hybrid is treated as 100% debt?

Adjusted_Debt = 63,281 + 8,266 + 19,793 + 16,393 - 16,178 = 91,555,000,000

This is significantly higher. Given S&P's typical 50% treatment, I'll stick with 81,658.5M.

Actually, I want to verify the hybrid treatment. S&P's corporate methodology says: "We treat hybrid capital as 50% debt and 50% equity unless the instrument has more equity-like or more debt-like features." Given the name "Hybrid Capital" and equity classification, 50% seems appropriate.

## Step 5: Calculate FFO / Adjusted_Debt

FFO = 11,361,000,000
Adjusted_Debt = 81,658,500,000

FFO / Adjusted_Debt = 11,361 / 81,658.5 = 0.1391...

Let me calculate: 11,361 / 81,658.5 = 0.139129...

Rounded to four decimal places: **0.1391**

But wait - I want to reconsider my Adjusted_EBITDA. Let me think about whether I was too aggressive in adjusting for disposal gains.

If I use unadjusted EBITDA = 32,057M:
FFO = 32,057 - 8,548 - 1,263 = 22,246M
FFO/Debt = 22,246 / 81,658.5 = 0.2724

This is quite different. Which is more appropriate?

For Ørsted specifically, farm-downs are a core part of their business model. They regularly sell stakes in offshore wind farms to share risk and recycle capital. If we completely exclude these gains, we might misrepresent the business.

However, for credit analysis, S&P wants to assess the sustainability of cash flows. Farm-down gains are lumpy and depend on market conditions and portfolio decisions. They're not from the core operation of generating and selling power.

Looking at S&P's actual rating reports for Ørsted, they typically adjust for farm-down gains and use metrics based on operational cash flows.

Let me also consider: the 10,885M is "Adjustments For Losses Gains On Disposal Of Noncurrent Assets." This is the cash flow adjustment. But is this all in EBITDA?

Looking at the P&L structure:
- EBITDA includes: Revenue, Cost of sales, Other external expenses, Employee benefits, Other income, Core JV income, Other expense by nature
- Below EBITDA/Operating profit: Gains on disposals of investments, Non-core JV, Finance income, Finance costs

The "Other Income" of 14,119M is large. If this includes the 10,885M gains, then yes, it's in EBITDA.

But "Gains Losses On Disposals Of Investments" is only 331M, which is below operating profit. So where is the 10,885M?

Perhaps "Other Income" includes gains on disposal of property, plant and equipment (not investments). Or perhaps the 10,885M is net of many items including losses and gains.

Given the uncertainty, and that S&P would likely make their own determination based on detailed discussions with management, I need to make a reasonable estimate.

Let me try a different approach: use reported EBITDA but adjust for clearly identifiable nonrecurring items, and use a more standard FFO calculation.

Actually, looking at this more carefully: for the FFO calculation, S&P sometimes uses:
FFO = Net income + D&A + deferred taxes + other non-cash items - gains on asset sales + other adjustments

From net income (14,996M):
+ D&A (12,283M)
+ Deferred tax expense (~1,350M)
- Gains on disposal (-10,885M, to remove them)
= 17,744M before other adjustments

Then - working capital changes? No, FFO excludes working capital.

Actually, this approach gives 14,996 + 12,283 + 1,350 - 10,885 = 17,744M. This is higher than my EBITDA-based 11,361M because it starts from net income which already includes interest expense and tax expense, not cash amounts.

Wait, I need to be more careful. Let me use the standard S&P definition:

FFO = Funds from operations = EBITDA - cash interest - cash taxes

This is the standard simplified formula. But EBITDA should be "adjusted" EBITDA.

If I use unadjusted EBITDA = 32,057M:
FFO = 32,057 - 8,548 - 1,263 = 22,246M

If I use adjusted EBITDA (removing 10,885M gains):
FFO = 21,172 - 8,548 - 1,263 = 11,361M

The difference is huge. Let me think about which is more correct for S&P purposes.

For Ørsted's 2022 results, they reported very high EBITDA due to farm-down gains. S&P would likely note this as nonrecurring and adjust.

However, looking at the actual S&P rating for Ørsted (I recall it's BBB+ or similar), they do adjust for these items.

Let me also check if there's another way to estimate. The cash flow from operations is 11,924M. This includes working capital and other items. If I adjust for working capital (2,543M source), I get 9,381M pre-working-capital. But this also includes other items.

Actually, let me look at the cash flow reconciliation more carefully. The operating cash flow of 11,924M is after all adjustments. To get to something like FFO, I'd add back working capital uses and subtract working capital sources.

Working capital was a net source of 2,543M (based on my earlier calc). So pre-working-capital operating cash flow = 11,924 - 2,543 = 9,381M? No, if WC is a source, it increased cash flow, so to remove it I subtract: 11,924 - 2,543 = 9,381M.

But this 9,381M includes interest received (7,985M) and excludes some items. It's not directly comparable to FFO.

Actually, standard S&P FFO is closer to: Net income + D&A + deferred taxes - gains on asset sales + other non-cash items - cash interest? No, that's wrong.

Let me use the formula given in the instructions: FFO = Adjusted_EBITDA - cash_interest - cash_taxes

I need to decide on Adjusted_EBITDA. Given the instructions say to follow S&P guidelines and make normalization adjustments, and the huge spike in "Other Income" and disposal gains, I'll use the adjusted figure.

But let me also consider: maybe I should only adjust for part of the gains, or use an average?

For a conservative credit estimate, I'll use the adjusted EBITDA.

**FFO / Adjusted_Debt = 11,361 / 81,658.5 = 0.1391**

Actually, I want to recheck my debt calculation. Let me see if I'm missing anything.

For Unregulated Power and Gas, the methodology mentions PPAs as potentially debt-like. But no specific PPA obligation data is given.

Also, I should check if "Current Financial Assets At Fair Value Through Profit Or Loss Classified As Held For Trading" = 25,197M should be included in eligible cash. These are likely liquid investments or collateral. If they're unrestricted and liquid, they could be included.

However, given the large derivative positions and collateral movements, these might be restricted or needed for operations.

Let me be slightly more inclusive and add half of these as eligible cash: 16,178 + 12,598.5 = 28,776.5M

Then Adjusted_Debt = 97,836.5 - 28,776.5 = 69,060M

FFO/Debt = 11,361 / 69,060 = 0.1645

But this seems too generous. Let me stick with just "Cash" as eligible.

Actually, looking more carefully at S&P's standard: eligible cash typically includes cash and cash equivalents, and sometimes short-term liquid investments. The "Current Financial Assets At Fair Value Through Profit Or Loss Classified As Held For Trading" might be trading positions, not cash equivalents.

I'll stick with Cash = 16,178M as eligible cash.

Let me also reconsider the tax equity liabilities. Are these truly debt-like?

Tax equity financing is where investors provide capital in exchange for tax benefits (tax credits, depreciation). The company has obligations to these investors. They're typically structured as partnership flip structures or sale-leaseback, or inverted leases.

For S&P purposes, tax equity is often treated as debt-like because it creates fixed obligations.

However, the treatment varies. Some analysts treat tax equity as non-debt because it's structured as equity in the project entity.

Given S&P's conservative approach, I'll include tax equity as debt-like.

Let me finalize my calculation:

Adjusted_EBITDA = 32,057 - 10,885 = 21,172M
FFO = 21,172 - 8,548 - 1,263 = 11,361M

Adjusted_Debt:
- Reported debt: 60,451 + 2,830 = 63,281M
- Leases: 7,697 + 569 = 8,266M
- Hybrid (50%): 19,793 × 0.5 = 9,896.5M
- Tax equity: 14,490 + 1,903 = 16,393M
- Less cash: 16,178M

Adjusted_Debt = 63,281 + 8,266 + 9,896.5 + 16,393 - 16,178 = 81,658.5M

FFO / Adjusted_Debt = 11,361 / 81,658.5 = 0.139129... ≈ **0.1391**

Wait, I want to double-check one thing. Should I use year-end 2022 or average debt? S&P typically uses year-end or average debt. For FFO/debt, they usually use year-end debt.

Also, should I use 2022-01-01 or 2023-01-01 balances? The 2023-01-01 is end of 2022, so that's correct.

Let me verify my debt figures:
- 2023-01-01 (end 2022): Longterm 60,451M, Shortterm 2,830M
- 2022-01-01 (end 2021): Longterm 31,502M, Shortterm 19,493M

Debt increased significantly in 2022. Using year-end is appropriate.

One more check: should I include "Liabilities Included In Disposal Groups Classified As Held For Sale" = 0 at 2023-01-01? This is zero, so no impact.

Final calculation: 11,361 / 81,658.5 = 0.139129...

Rounded to four decimal places: **0.1391**

Actually, let me recalculate: 11361000000 / 81658500000 = 0.1391292...

Yes, 0.1391.

But I want to do one more sanity check. Is my FFO reasonable?

Operating cash flow = 11,924M
My FFO = 11,361M

FFO should typically be higher than operating cash flow because FFO excludes working capital changes. But my FFO is lower than operating cash flow. This suggests my Adjusted_EBITDA might be too low, or there's something wrong.

Wait, let me check: Operating cash flow includes interest received (7,985M) and other items. If I start from EBITDA and subtract cash interest and cash taxes, I get FFO before working capital and other items.

Actually, standard FFO should be compared to operating cash flow before working capital changes, not total operating cash flow.

Let me estimate operating cash flow before working capital:
Total operating CF = 11,924M
Working capital sources = roughly 2,543M (from my earlier calc, but let me verify)

From cash flow adjustments:
- Inventories: +1,419M (source, decrease)
- Contract assets/liabilities: -1,303M (use, net)
- Trade receivables: -2,875M (use, increase)
- Other operating receivables: +2,742M (source, decrease)
- Trade payables: +3,886M (source, increase)
- Tax equity partner liabilities: -353M (use, decrease)
- Other operating payables: -38M (use, decrease)

Sum: 1,419 - 1,303 - 2,875 + 2,742 + 3,886 - 353 - 38 = 3,478M

Wait, I had -1,935M for provisions earlier, but that's a non-cash adjustment, not working capital.

So working capital sources = 3,478M

Operating CF before working capital = 11,924 - 3,478 = 8,446M

This is lower than my FFO of 11,361M. So FFO > operating CF before WC, which makes sense because FFO excludes some cash uses that are in operating CF before WC (like interest received vs paid treatment, or other items).

Actually, let me recalculate working capital more carefully from the balance sheet changes:

Inventories: 15,998 - 14,103 = 1,895 decrease... wait, 2022-01-01 is 15,998 and 2023-01-01 is 14,103. So decrease of 1,895M. But cash flow says +1,419M. There's a difference due to FX or other adjustments.

Trade receivables: 9,565 - 12,701 = 3,136 increase. Cash flow says -2,875M. Close.

Other current receivables: 16,134 - 20,289 = 4,155 increase. Cash flow says +2,742M (source, meaning decrease). Wait, this is opposite!

Actually, I need to be more careful. The cash flow signs: "Adjustments For Decrease Increase In..." means the adjustment to profit. If receivables increase, it's a use of cash, so the adjustment is negative.

"Adjustments For Decrease Increase In Trade Account Receivable" = -2,875M means receivables increased by 2,875M.

But balance sheet shows 9,565M to 12,701M = increase of 3,136M. Close but not exact, likely due to FX or disposals.

For "Adjustments For Decrease Increase In Other Operating Receivables" = +2,742M means other operating receivables decreased by 2,742M.

But balance sheet "Other Current Receivables" = 16,134M to 20,289M = increase of 4,155M. This is opposite!

Hmm, this suggests "Other Operating Receivables" in cash flow might not equal "Other Current Receivables" in balance sheet. Or there are classification differences.

This complexity confirms I should stick with the formulaic approach: FFO = Adjusted_EBITDA - cash_interest - cash_taxes.

Given my FFO of 11,361M and operating CF before WC of roughly 8,446M, the difference might be due to different treatments of various items. I'll stick with my calculation.

Actually, let me try yet another approach to validate. S&P sometimes calculates FFO as:

FFO = Net income available to common + D&A + deferred taxes + other non-cash items - gains on asset sales + preferred dividends

Net income available to common = 14,549M (attributable to owners of parent, or 14,996M total profit less 577M to hybrid, less -130M noncontrolling... actually 14,996 - 577 + 130 = 14,549? No, 14,996 total = 14,549 parent + 577 hybrid - 130 NCI. So common = 14,549M.

+ D&A = 12,283M
+ Deferred taxes = ~1,350M (2,613 expense - 1,263 cash paid, but need to verify)
- Gains on disposal = -10,885M (to remove)
+ Hybrid coupons (if treated as preferred) = 529M? Or is this already in net income?

Net income is after hybrid coupons (they're distributions, not expense). So no adjustment needed.

FFO = 14,549 + 12,283 + 1,350 - 10,885 = 17,297M

This is higher than my 11,361M because this approach uses accounting interest/taxes, not cash amounts.

Actually, S&P FFO from net income typically adds back non-cash interest and uses cash taxes, or various adjustments. The formula isn't standardized.

Given the instructions specify: FFO = Adjusted_EBITDA - cash_interest - cash_taxes, I'll stick with this.

But wait - the 17,297M above is closer to unadjusted EBITDA minus cash interest minus cash taxes if we start from there. Let me check:

Unadjusted EBITDA = 32,057
- Cash interest = 8,548
- Cash taxes = 1,263
= 22,246M

This is higher than 17,297M because EBITDA includes interest income and other items below operating profit.

Actually, EBITDA = 32,057M is "Before Interest Taxes Depreciation And Amortisation" - this means it's before finance income and finance costs, so it's pre-interest.

Net income = 14,996M
+ Finance costs = 18,050M
- Finance income = -15,514M
= 17,532M pre-finance, pre-tax
+ Income tax expense = 2,613M
= 20,145M pre-finance, pre-tax... this doesn't match EBITDA of 32,057M.

Wait, I need to look at this more carefully. The P&L structure seems to have operating profit, then gains/losses on disposals, then JV non-core, then finance items.

"Profit Loss From Operating Activities" = 19,774M
+ D&A = 12,283M
= 32,057M EBITDA

But "Profit Loss From Operating Activities" includes:
- Gains on disposals of investments? No, that's below.
- Core JV income? Yes, 114M is in operating activities.
- Other income? Yes, 14,119M.
- Other expense by nature? Yes, -4,963M.

So EBITDA = 32,057M is correct as operating profit before D&A.

Then below operating profit:
+ Gains on disposals of investments = 331M
+ Non-core JV = 40M
+ Finance income = 15,514M
- Finance costs = -18,050M
= Profit before tax = 19,774 + 331 + 40 + 15,514 - 18,050 = 17,609M

Wait, that gives 17,609M, but "Profit Loss Before Tax" = 17,609M? No, the fact says 17,609M? Let me check: "Profit Loss Before Tax" 2022 = 17,609,000,000? No, it says 17,609,000,000? Let me re-read.

"Profit Loss Before Tax" 2022-01-01 - 2023-01-01: 17609000000 DKK. Yes, 17,609M.

But 19,774 + 331 + 40 + 15,514 - 18,050 = 17,609M. Yes, matches.

So EBITDA = 32,057M is correct.

Now, my adjusted EBITDA = 32,057 - 10,885 = 21,172M assumes the 10,885M disposal gains are in EBITDA. But looking at the P&L, "Gains Losses On Disposals Of Investments" = 331M is below operating profit, not in EBITDA.

Where is the 10,885M? It must be in "Other Income" or "Other Expense By Nature" or elsewhere in operating profit.

Actually, "Other Income" = 14,119M is quite large and increased from 10,185M. This 3,934M increase might include gains. But 10,885M is much larger.

Perhaps the 10,885M is the total gains, but only part is in EBITDA? Or perhaps it's net of losses and includes items not in profit?

Actually, the cash flow adjustment "Adjustments For Losses Gains On Disposal Of Noncurrent Assets" = -10,885M means we subtract 10,885M from profit to get to cash flow (because it's a gain). This doesn't mean all 10,885M was in profit - it could include gains that were in other comprehensive income or elsewhere.

But typically, this adjustment reconciles profit to operating cash flow, so it should be in profit.

Hmm, let me look at this differently. "Profit Loss" = 14,996M. The cash flow starts from here and makes adjustments. If we add back 10,885M gain, we get higher cash flow basis profit.

But wait - if gain is in profit, and we subtract it for cash flow, that means cash flow < profit. But operating cash flow is 11,924M and profit is 14,996M, so cash flow < profit. This makes sense if there are gains and other items that reduce cash flow.

Actually, with -10,885M adjustment, the profit basis becomes 14,996 - 10,885 = 4,111M before other adjustments. Then add D&A (12,283M), other adjustments, and working capital to get to 11,924M.

So yes, the 10,885M gain was in profit. Was it in EBITDA? 

If the gain was in "Other Income" which is part of operating profit, then yes. "Other Income" of 14,119M could include 10,885M of gains plus 3,234M of other items.

This would make "Other Income" mostly gains, which seems plausible for Ørsted's farm-down model.

I'll proceed with adjusted EBITDA = 21,172M.

But let me also consider: if I only remove the portion that's clearly nonrecurring, and keep some "normalized" farm-down gains?

For 2021, disposal gains adjustment was -7,920M. So average is about 9,400M. If I normalize to average, adjusted EBITDA = 32,057 - 9,400 = 22,657M.

But S&P typically doesn't normalize this way - they remove the actual nonrecurring amount.

Given the uncertainty, and that this is an estimate, I'll use my adjusted figure.

**Final answer: FFO / Adjusted_Debt = 11,361 / 81,658.5 = 0.1391**

Actually, I want to do one more verification of my debt calculation. Let me add more carefully:

Reported debt:
- Longterm Borrowings: 60,451,000,000
- Shortterm Borrowings: 2,830,000,000
- Total: 63,281,000,000

Leases:
- Noncurrent Lease Liabilities: 7,697,000,000
- Current Lease Liabilities: 569,000,000
- Total: 8,266,000,000

Hybrid capital (50% debt-like):
- Hybrid Capital: 19,793,000,000
- 50%: 9,896,500,000

Tax equity liabilities:
- Non Current Tax Equity Liabilities: 14,490,000,000
- Current Tax Equity Liabilities: 1,903,000,000
- Total: 16,393,000,000

Sum of debt-like items: 63,281 + 8,266 + 9,896.5 + 16,393 = 97,836.5

Less eligible cash:
- Cash: 16,178,000,000

Adjusted_Debt = 97,836.5 - 16,178 = 81,658.5

Yes, this is correct.

One final check: should I include the full hybrid capital as debt? Some S&P analysts treat hybrid capital more like debt for highly leveraged companies. But Ørsted's hybrid is investment-grade quality, so 50% is standard.

If 100%: Adjusted_Debt = 63,281 + 8,266 + 19,793 + 16,393 - 16,178 = 91,555
FFO/Debt = 11,361 / 91,555 = 0.1241

I'll stick with 50% as the standard S&P treatment.

<answer>0.1391</answer>