To estimate the S&P-adjusted debt-to-EBITDA ratio for Fortum Oyj for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2022, we follow the workflow outlined.

### Step 1: Identify the Relevant Industry

Fortum Oyj is a Finnish energy company. Its operations include power generation (nuclear, hydro, wind, solar, thermal), district heating and cooling, and energy solutions.
*   **Regulated Utilities:** Fortum has significant regulated network operations (distribution) in the Nordics, but a large portion of its business is generation and sales, which are largely unregulated or merchant-based.
*   **Unregulated Power and Gas:** This sector description fits companies involved in power generation and supply that do not benefit from protective rate regulation for the majority of their earnings. Fortum's generation portfolio is exposed to market prices (merchant risk), although it has some hedging and long-term contracts. The "Unregulated Power and Gas" methodology is the most appropriate fit among the specific sectors provided, as Fortum is not a pure regulated utility (like a pure distribution network operator) nor an E&P or Transportation Infrastructure company. However, S&P often treats integrated European utilities with a mix of regulated and unregulated assets under a hybrid approach or defaults to the **Unregulated Power and Gas** methodology if the regulated portion doesn't dominate sufficiently to warrant the "Regulated Utilities" low-volatility treatment. Given the high volatility in Fortum's earnings due to energy prices (evident in the 2022 results with large impairment losses and mark-to-market effects on derivatives), the **Unregulated Power and Gas** methodology is the correct classification for ratio adjustments, particularly regarding the treatment of derivatives and cash.

*Note: Even if classified as Regulated Utilities, the core definition of Debt and EBITDA adjustments for S&P usually converges on similar principles for large integrated utilities, specifically regarding the netting of cash against debt and the use of Comparable EBITDA (which excludes non-recurring items). The provided text for Unregulated Power and Gas mentions using EBITDA margin and ROC. It does not specify unique debt adjustments like the "purchased power methodology" for regulated utilities unless specific PPAs are debt-like. Fortum's main balance sheet features are standard debt and significant derivative positions.*

### Step 2: Estimate Adjusted Debt

**Formula:** `Adjusted_Debt = (reported_debt + leases + pension_deficit + guarantees + hybrid_debt_portion + other_debt_like_items) - eligible_cash`

From the balance sheet data provided for 2022-01-01 (End of 2022):

1.  **Reported Debt:**
    *   `Other Noncurrent Financial Liabilities`: 3,658,000,000 EUR
    *   `Other Current Financial Liabilities`: 4,127,000,000 EUR
    *   *Note: Derivative financial liabilities are typically excluded from standard debt calculations for S&P ratios unless they are debt-like hedges, but S&P often looks at Gross Debt. However, standard S&P methodology for industrials and utilities usually defines Debt as interest-bearing borrowings. Derivatives are part of working capital or separate adjustments. Let's sum the explicit financial liabilities.*
    *   Total Interest-Bearing Debt = 3,658m + 4,127m = 7,785,000,000 EUR.
    *   *Check for Leases:* The data does not explicitly list "Lease Liabilities". In many IFRS reports, these are embedded in "Other Noncurrent/Current Financial Liabilities" or separate. Without a specific line item, we assume the reported financial liabilities include lease obligations or they are immaterial relative to the total, or we use the provided "Financial Liabilities" as the proxy for debt.
    *   *Hybrid Debt:* No specific hybrid instruments are identified in the provided facts.

2.  **Pension Deficit:**
    *   `Noncurrent Recognised Liabilities Defined Benefit Plan`: 13,000,000 EUR.
    *   S&P typically adds the underfunded status of pension plans to debt. Here, the liability is 13m. We assume this is the net deficit.

3.  **Other Debt-like Items:**
    *   Derivatives: Fortum has massive derivative positions (`Current Derivative Financial Liabilities`: 71,947m; `Noncurrent Derivative Financial Liabilities`: 16,657m). However, these are largely hedging instruments related to energy trading and production. S&P generally does *not* include mark-to-market derivative liabilities in "Debt" for leverage ratios, as they are volatile and not contractual debt obligations. They affect EBITDA via normalization if necessary, but not the Debt numerator directly.
    *   Margin Liabilities: `Margin Liabilities` (Current): 985,000,000 EUR. These are collateral posted for trading. They are typically treated as working capital or operating items, not debt.

4.  **Eligible Cash:**
    *   `Liquid Funds`: 3,919,000,000 EUR.
    *   `Cash And Cash Equivalents`: 3,919,000,000 EUR.
    *   S&P allows netting of cash against debt. We assume all liquid funds are eligible.

**Calculation of Adjusted Debt:**
*   Gross Debt = 7,785,000,000 EUR
*   Add Pension Deficit = 13,000,000 EUR
*   Less Eligible Cash = 3,919,000,000 EUR
*   **Adjusted Debt** = 7,785m + 13m - 3,919m = **3,879,000,000 EUR**

*(Self-Correction/Refinement: Does S&P net cash for Unregulated Power & Gas? Yes, typically cash is netted against debt for leverage ratios unless the cash is restricted or needed for specific operational reasons that make it ineligible. Given Fortum's liquidity profile, standard netting applies.)*

### Step 3: Estimate Adjusted EBITDA

**Formula:** `Adjusted_EBITDA = EBITDA + adjustment_leases + nonrecurring_losses - nonrecurring_gains ± other_normalization_adjustments`

The provided facts include a specific line item: `"Comparable Ebitda" 2022-01-01 - 2023-01-01: 2,436,000,000 EUR`.

S&P's definition of Adjusted EBITDA generally aligns with "Comparable EBITDA" or "Underlying EBITDA" reported by companies, provided it adds back non-recurring items and normalizes for joint ventures. Let's verify if "Comparable EBITDA" is a good proxy or if further adjustments are needed based on the facts.

*   **Reported EBITDA:** The facts provide `"Operating Profit Before Depreciations Ebitda"` as 1,842,000,000 EUR.
*   **Adjustments to get to Comparable EBITDA:** The difference between Reported EBITDA (1,842m) and Comparable EBITDA (2,436m) is 594m.
*   The facts list `"Items Affecting Comparability"` as -593,000,000 EUR. This suggests that the Reported Operating Profit was reduced by these items. Since EBITDA is derived from Operating Profit, adding back these negative items (losses/impairments) increases EBITDA.
    *   Reported EBITDA: 1,842m
    *   Add back Items Affecting Comparability (which are expenses/losses): +593m
    *   Result: ~2,435m (matches Comparable EBITDA of 2,436m closely, allowing for rounding or minor other adjustments).

**S&P Adjustments to Comparable EBITDA:**
1.  **Non-recurring losses/gains:** "Items Affecting Comparability" usually contains impairments, restructuring costs, and gains/losses on divestments. S&P adds back losses and subtracts gains.
    *   The `Items Affecting Comparability` is -593m. This is a net expense.
    *   Breakdown of Items Affecting Comparability isn't fully detailed, but `Impairment Loss` is 905m (gain/reversal? No, "Impairment Loss Reversal... Recognised In Profit Or Loss" is 905m. Wait, the label is "Impairment Loss Reversal...". A reversal is a gain.
    *   `Capital Gains And Other Related Items`: 785m (Gain).
    *   `Other Adjustments Affecting Comparability`: 80m.
    *   Let's check the math: If Impairment Reversal is +905m and Capital Gains are +785m, these are gains. Why is the total "Items Affecting Comparability" negative (-593m)?
    *   There must be larger negative items not explicitly broken out in the summary list or the "Impairment Loss Reversal" label implies the *line item* value, but the net effect of all comparability items is -593m.
    *   Actually, looking at `Profit Loss From Operating Activities` (1,277m) vs `Comparable Operating Profit` (1,871m). The difference is 594m. The `Items Affecting Comparability` is -593m. This implies the "Items" reduced the profit. Therefore, the "Items" are net *costs* or *losses*.
    *   Wait, if `Comparable Operating Profit` is HIGHER than `Reported Operating Profit`, then the `Items Affecting Comparability` must be negative (expenses) that were excluded from the Comparable measure.
    *   Reported Op Profit = 1,277m.
    *   Comparable Op Profit = 1,871m.
    *   Difference = 594m.
    *   The fact `"Items Affecting Comparability"` is -593m. This confirms that the reported profit was dragged down by 593m of "bad" items (or items deemed non-comparable).
    *   Therefore, to get from Reported EBITDA to Adjusted EBITDA, we add back these 593m of losses/expenses.
    *   S&P typically adds back impairments and restructuring. It subtracts gains.
    *   If the net "Items" are -593m, it means expenses > gains.
    *   However, we see `Impairment Loss Reversal` of 905m and `Capital Gains` of 785m. These are positive numbers in the P&L (gains). If these are included in the "Items Affecting Comparability", they would make the item positive.
    *   There is a contradiction in my interpretation of the sign or the components. Let's look at `Profit Loss From Operating Activities` (1,277m) and `Comparable Operating Profit` (1,871m).
    *   Usually: Comparable = Reported + Addbacks.
    *   1,871 = 1,277 + Addbacks.
    *   Addbacks = 594m.
    *   The fact `"Items Affecting Comparability"` is -593m. In many European reports, "Items affecting comparability" are presented as a separate line *below* operating profit or as a reconciliation. If the line item itself is negative, it reduces profit.
    *   If the Reported Profit *includes* this -593m, then excluding it (to get Comparable) means adding it back.
    *   So, Adjusted EBITDA should include the add-back of these 593m.
    *   The `"Comparable Ebitda"` is explicitly stated as **2,436,000,000 EUR**.
    *   S&P generally accepts management's "Comparable" or "Underlying" EBITDA as a starting point, provided it doesn't aggressively add back recurring costs. Given the volatility in 2022 (energy crisis), impairments and mark-to-market swings are often considered non-core or volatile by rating agencies.
    *   However, S&P might adjust for **Joint Ventures**.
    *   `Share Of Profit Loss Of Associates And Joint Ventures`: -629,000,000 EUR.
    *   S&P typically uses **Proportional Consolidation** for JVs in the Utilities/Power sector if they are core to operations, or adds back the equity income/loss and includes the proportional EBITDA of the JVs.
    *   The "Comparable EBITDA" metric usually *excludes* the share of results of associates/JVs (equity method) because EBITDA is a pre-interest, pre-tax, pre-equity-income metric.
    *   If Fortum's "Comparable EBITDA" is derived from "Comparable Operating Profit" + D&A, let's check:
        *   Comparable Operating Profit: 1,871m
        *   Depreciation and Amortisation: 566m
        *   Sum: 1,871 + 566 = 2,437m.
        *   This matches the `"Comparable Ebitda"` of 2,436m (1m difference likely due to rounding or minor classification).
    *   This confirms that "Comparable EBITDA" is essentially the EBITDA of the consolidated entities, excluding the equity pick-up from JVs.
    *   **S&P Adjustment for JVs:** For power utilities, S&P often adds the proportional EBITDA of material JVs.
    *   We do not have the specific EBITDA of the JVs, only the "Share of Profit/Loss" (-629m). This loss includes depreciation, interest, and tax of the JVs. We cannot accurately reconstruct the JV EBITDA from this single line item without more data (like JV revenue, D&A, etc.).
    *   However, in the absence of specific JV financials, and given the prompt asks to estimate based on *given facts*, we must rely on the provided EBITDA figure. The standard baseline formula says `± joint_venture_proportional_EBITDA`. If we cannot calculate it, we might have to assume it's either immaterial or included/excluded in a way that the "Comparable EBITDA" is the best proxy for "Adjusted EBITDA" available.
    *   *Alternative View:* If the JV share is a loss of 629m, the JVs are likely capital intensive (depreciation) or had impairments. Adding back proportional EBITDA would increase the denominator. Without the data, we stick to the reported Comparable EBITDA as the primary proxy for Adjusted EBITDA, noting that S&P might adjust it upwards if JV EBITDA is positive. However, a *loss* in equity income often implies low or negative EBITDA or high D&A/Interest.
    *   Let's check if there are other adjustments.
    *   **Leases:** If leases are in debt, we add back lease EBITDA (rent). We don't have rent expense. We assumed leases are in debt. If we added lease liability to debt, we should add lease expense to EBITDA. Without specific rent data, we assume the "Comparable EBITDA" is the standard operating metric.
    *   **Pension:** Pension adjustments are usually small.
    *   **Non-recurring items:** The "Comparable EBITDA" already adds back the "Items Affecting Comparability" (-593m). S&P would likely agree with adding back impairments and restructuring. It might subtract gains. The net item was an expense (-593m), so adding it back is conservative and appropriate for S&P.

    Therefore, **Adjusted EBITDA ≈ Comparable EBITDA = 2,436,000,000 EUR**.

### Step 4: Calculate the Ratio

*   **Adjusted Debt:** 3,879,000,000 EUR
*   **Adjusted EBITDA:** 2,436,000,000 EUR

$$ \text{Ratio} = \frac{3,879}{2,436} \approx 1.5923 $$

Let's double check the Debt calculation.
Is there any other debt?
`Other Noncurrent Financial Liabilities`: 3,658m
`Other Current Financial Liabilities`: 4,127m
Total: 7,785m.

Are `Margin Liabilities` debt?
Margin liabilities (985m) and Margin Receivables (9,163m in 2022? No, 2023-01-01 is 2,607m. 2022-01-01 is 9,163m? Wait.
Let's check the dates.
The facts are for "2022-01-01 - 2023-01-01" (Flow) and balances at "2023-01-01" and "2022-01-01".
The request is for the fiscal year ended Dec 31, 2022. This corresponds to the balance sheet at **2023-01-01** (which is the end of the 2022 fiscal year) and the flow/income statement for the period ending 2023-01-01.

**Correction on Balance Sheet Date:**
The prompt asks for the ratio for **2022**.
The balance sheet date for the end of 2022 is **2023-01-01**.
The income statement period is **2022-01-01 - 2023-01-01**.

Let's re-read the balance sheet items for **2023-01-01** (End of 2022):

*   `Other Noncurrent Financial Liabilities` (2023-01-01): **3,658,000,000 EUR**
*   `Other Current Financial Liabilities` (2023-01-01): **4,127,000,000 EUR**
*   `Liquid Funds` (2023-01-01): **3,919,000,000 EUR**
*   `Cash And Cash Equivalents` (2023-01-01): **3,919,000,000 EUR**

*   `Noncurrent Derivative Financial Liabilities` (2023-01-01): 756,000,000 EUR
*   `Current Derivative Financial Liabilities` (2023-01-01): 3,973,000,000 EUR
    *   *Note:* Derivatives are excluded from Debt.

*   `Margin Liabilities` (2023-01-01): 352,000,000 EUR.
    *   Margin liabilities are typically collateral obligations, not debt.

*   `Pension Liabilities` (2023-01-01): `Noncurrent Recognised Liabilities Defined Benefit Plan`: **13,000,000 EUR**.

**Recalculating Adjusted Debt (End of 2022):**
*   Gross Debt = 3,658m + 4,127m = 7,785m.
*   Add Pension Deficit = 13m.
*   Less Cash = 3,919m.
*   Adjusted Debt = 7,785 + 13 - 3,919 = **3,879m**.

**Recalculating Adjusted EBITDA (FY 2022):**
*   Period: 2022-01-01 to 2023-01-01.
*   `Comparable Ebitda`: **2,436,000,000 EUR**.

**Ratio:**
$$ \frac{3,879}{2,436} = 1.59236... $$

Rounding to two decimal places: **1.59**

<answer>1.59</answer>