I'll work through this step-by-step, first identifying the relevant industry for Ørsted A/S, then calculating Adjusted Debt and Adjusted EBITDA.

## Step 1: Identify the Relevant Industry

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

- **Regulated Utilities**: Not primarily applicable - Ørsted operates in competitive/unregulated markets for most of its generation
- **Oil and Gas E&P**: Not applicable
- **Unregulated Power And Gas**: **Most applicable** - Ørsted is a renewable generation company with long-term PPAs but also merchant exposure
- **Transportation Infrastructure**: Not applicable

Ørsted fits best in the **Unregulated Power And Gas** category, specifically as a renewable generation company with long-term contractual arrangements but also significant merchant/spot market exposure.

Key characteristics:
- Renewable generation (offshore wind, onshore wind, solar)
- Long-term PPAs but also merchant exposure
- Not a regulated utility with cost-of-service regulation

## Step 2: Estimate Adjusted_Debt

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

### Reported Debt Components from Balance Sheet (2023-01-01 / year-end 2022):

**Long-term borrowings**: 60,451,000,000 DKK
**Short-term borrowings**: 2,830,000,000 DKK

Total reported debt = 60,451,000,000 + 2,830,000,000 = **63,281,000,000 DKK**

### Leases (from balance sheet):
**Noncurrent lease liabilities**: 7,697,000,000 DKK
**Current lease liabilities**: 569,000,000 DKK

Total leases = 7,697,000,000 + 569,000,000 = **8,266,000,000 DKK**

### Hybrid Capital:
From the equity section: **Hybrid Capital** = 19,793,000,000 DKK

Per S&P methodology, hybrid capital is treated as partly equity, partly debt. Typically 50% equity/50% debt treatment for hybrid capital, or based on specific terms. For S&P ratings, hybrid capital is typically counted as 50% debt-like.

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

### Pension Deficit:
No explicit pension deficit identified in the data. **0 DKK**

### Guarantees and other debt-like items:
No specific guarantees identified. Derivatives are marked-to-market and already on balance sheet.

### Eligible Cash:
**Cash** = 16,178,000,000 DKK
**Current financial assets at FVTPL (held for trading)** = 25,197,000,000 DKK

For S&P purposes, cash and highly liquid investments are typically deducted. However, trading financial assets may not all be eligible. I'll use cash only as conservative eligible cash = **16,178,000,000 DKK**

### Adjusted_Debt Calculation:
Adjusted_Debt = (63,281,000,000 + 8,266,000,000 + 0 + 0 + 9,896,500,000 + 0) - 16,178,000,000
Adjusted_Debt = 81,443,500,000 - 16,178,000,000
**Adjusted_Debt = 65,265,500,000 DKK**

## Step 3: Estimate Adjusted_EBITDA

### Starting Point - Reported EBITDA:
From the income statement: "Profit Loss From Operating Activities Before Interest Taxes Depreciation And Amortisation Expense" = **32,057,000,000 DKK**

This is the reported EBITDA.

### Adjustments needed:

**Lease adjustments**: Under S&P methodology for unregulated power and gas, operating leases are typically capitalized and we add back lease expense to EBITDA. However, with IFRS 16, leases are already on balance sheet and depreciation/amortization of right-of-use assets is in the depreciation figure. We need to check if EBITDA already includes lease-related items.

Looking at the EBITDA figure provided: 32,057,000,000 DKK. This is pre-IFRS 16 treatment for EBITDA calculation purposes in S&P methodology.

Actually, let me verify: The reported EBITDA of 32,057,000,000 DKK should already reflect the operating performance. Under S&P, we typically add back operating lease expense (if operating leases exist) or make adjustments for capitalized leases.

With IFRS 16, the lease expense is split into depreciation and interest. The EBITDA figure likely already excludes lease depreciation (since it's before depreciation). However, for S&P purposes, we need to add back the lease expense equivalent to make EBITDA comparable.

For IFRS 16 companies, S&P typically adds back the lease depreciation to get a "lease-adjusted" EBITDA, or uses a different approach. Let me think more carefully.

Actually, the standard S&P approach for IFRS 16:
- The reported EBITDA is 32,057,000,000
- This is "before depreciation and amortisation" so it already excludes D&A including lease D&A
- For Adjusted EBITDA, we typically don't need to add back lease expense since we're using the reported EBITDA as starting point

However, for debt/EBITDA comparability, S&P often calculates "EBITDAR" or makes lease adjustments. Let me check if there are other adjustments needed.

**Nonrecurring items to adjust:**

From the income statement, looking for nonrecurring gains/losses:
- "Gains Losses On Disposals Of Investments" = 331,000,000 DKK (gain in 2022)
- "Other Income" = 14,119,000,000 DKK - this includes various items, need to assess if nonrecurring
- "Other Expense By Nature" = 4,963,000,000 DKK

Looking at "Other Income" of 14,119,000,000 DKK - this is quite large. For Ørsted, this typically includes gains from farm-downs of offshore wind projects (selling stakes in projects). These are somewhat recurring as part of business model but can be volatile.

From cash flow statement: "Adjustments For Losses Gains On Disposal Of Noncurrent Assets" = -10,885,000,000 DKK (negative means gains deducted)

This suggests significant gains on disposals of ~10.9 billion DKK are included in profit. These are likely from farm-downs of wind project stakes.

Let me look more carefully at the income statement:
- "Profit Loss From Operating Activities" = 19,774,000,000 DKK
- EBITDA = 32,057,000,000 DKK
- D&A = 12,283,000,000 DKK
- So EBIT = 32,057 - 12,283 = 19,774 ✓

Other Income of 14,119,000,000 DKK is included in EBITDA. This includes gains from disposals.

From cash flow: "Adjustments For Losses Gains On Disposal Of Noncurrent Assets" = -10,885,000,000 DKK. This is the adjustment to reconcile profit to cash flows, meaning there were gains of 10,885,000,000 DKK on disposals.

However, "Gains Losses On Disposals Of Investments" shows only 331,000,000 DKK. The 10,885,000,000 likely includes gains on disposals of property, plant and equipment (farm-downs).

For S&P purposes, gains/losses on disposals of non-core assets or one-time items are typically adjusted. Farm-down gains are somewhat part of Ørsted's business model but are volatile and non-operating in nature.

Let me also check "Other Expense By Nature" = 4,963,000,000 DKK. This increased significantly from 386,000,000 in 2021. This may include impairment losses or other nonrecurring items.

From the D&A line: "Depreciation Amortisation And Impairment Loss Reversal Of Impairment Loss Recognised In Profit Or Loss" = 12,283,000,000 DKK. This includes impairment losses.

Looking at 2021 vs 2022:
- 2021 D&A: 8,101,000,000
- 2022 D&A: 12,283,000,000

The increase includes higher depreciation and potentially impairments. In 2022, Ørsted had significant impairment losses related to Ocean Wind and other US offshore wind projects due to supply chain issues, inflation, etc.

Let me identify nonrecurring losses to add back:
- Impairment losses in 2022 were significant. From annual report context, Ørsted impaired Ocean Wind (US offshore wind) by approximately 2.8 billion DKK and had other adjustments.

Actually, let me use a more systematic approach based on available data:

**Nonrecurring gains to subtract:**
- Gains on disposals of investments: 331,000,000 DKK
- Gains on disposals of noncurrent assets (from CF adjustment): 10,885,000,000 DKK

Wait - the cash flow adjustment is "Adjustments For Losses Gains On Disposal Of Noncurrent Assets" = -10,885,000,000. Negative means it's deducted from profit to get to cash flow, meaning profit included gains of 10,885,000,000.

But this seems to conflict with the income statement line "Gains Losses On Disposals Of Investments" = 331,000,000. The 10,885,000,000 likely includes both PPE disposals and other items.

For S&P, we typically normalize EBITDA by removing nonrecurring gains and adding back nonrecurring losses.

**Key adjustments for Ørsted 2022:**

1. **Farm-down gains / gains on project divestments**: These are somewhat recurring but volatile. S&P typically views these as non-operating or at least normalizes them. Given the large amount (~10.9 billion from cash flow, or the 14.1 billion Other Income), we should subtract a portion.

Actually, looking more carefully: "Other Income" of 14,119,000,000 DKK. This is very large. In Ørsted's case, this includes:
- Gains from farm-downs (selling stakes in offshore wind farms)
- Other miscellaneous income

From the cash flow adjustment of -10,885,000,000 for gains on disposal of noncurrent assets, and the income statement line "Gains Losses On Disposals Of Investments" = 331,000,000, it seems the 10.9 billion is the main item.

For S&P adjusted EBITDA, we typically:
- Subtract nonrecurring gains
- Add back nonrecurring losses

Let me assume the 10,885,000,000 DKK gain on disposals is largely nonrecurring (or at least non-operating in steady-state), and subtract it.

However, Ørsted's business model involves regular farm-downs. But for credit analysis, S&P typically wants to see underlying operating performance.

2. **Impairment losses to add back**: Included in D&A of 12,283,000,000. We need to estimate impairment portion.

From public information about Ørsted's 2022 results, they recognized significant impairment losses. The D&A increased from 8,101 million to 12,283 million, an increase of 4,182 million. Part of this is higher depreciation from new assets, part is impairments.

Looking at "Other Expense By Nature" increasing from 386 million to 4,963 million (increase of 4,577 million), this suggests significant impairment losses or other nonrecurring expenses.

For S&P purposes, we add back impairment losses to EBITDA (since they're non-cash and nonrecurring).

Let me estimate: The 4,963,000,000 "Other Expense By Nature" likely includes a significant portion of impairments. In 2022, Ørsted announced impairments of ~4.8 billion DKK related to Ocean Wind and other items.

Let me use: Add back ~4,500,000,000 DKK of impairment losses (approximate).

3. **Other adjustments**:
- Share of profit of associates (core business): 114,000,000 DKK - this is equity method income, already in operating profit. For EBITDA, we might want to add back or not. S&P typically includes proportional EBITDA of JVs or excludes equity income. The standard approach is to use proportional consolidation for JVs or add back the equity income and include proportional EBITDA.

For simplicity, given small amount (114 million), I'll leave as is or add back to get to proportional EBITDA. Actually, for debt/EBITDA, S&P typically uses proportional EBITDA for JVs where the company has significant influence.

Let me use a practical approach:

**Base EBITDA**: 32,057,000,000 DKK

**Adjustments**:
- Subtract gains on disposals (nonrecurring): -10,885,000,000 DKK (from cash flow, or use the income statement items)
- Actually, let me be more careful. The EBITDA includes "Other Income" of 14,119,000,000. We need to determine what's recurring vs nonrecurring.

From cash flow statement: "Adjustments For Losses Gains On Disposal Of Noncurrent Assets" = -10,885,000,000. This means profit included 10,885,000,000 of gains.

But wait - this adjustment is for the cash flow statement, to reconcile profit to operating cash flow. The profit before tax is 17,609,000,000. The operating activities start from this and add back various items.

Let me recalculate: The EBITDA of 32,057,000,000 already includes all operating income and expenses. The "Other Income" of 14,119,000,000 is included in this.

For a cleaner approach, let me reconstruct "operating" EBITDA excluding the large one-off gains:

Looking at 2021 for comparison:
- 2021 EBITDA: 24,296,000,000
- 2021 Other Income: 10,185,000,000
- 2021 gains on disposals: -742,000,000 (loss)

In 2021, Other Income was also large (10.2 billion), suggesting farm-down gains are somewhat recurring. But 2022's 14.1 billion is higher.

For S&P, we typically use a "normalized" EBITDA that excludes volatile or nonrecurring items. Given Ørsted's farm-down model, perhaps we should use an average or exclude a portion.

However, for strict S&P methodology, let me follow standard adjustments:

**Adjusted EBITDA calculation:**

Starting EBITDA: 32,057,000,000

Add back:
- Operating lease expense (if not already in EBITDA): With IFRS 16, depreciation of right-of-use assets is in D&A, so EBITDA already excludes it. However, for comparability with pre-IFRS 16, S&P sometimes adds back lease depreciation. But this is complex.

Actually, for IFRS 16, the standard S&P approach is:
- Reported EBITDA is used as-is for the operating performance
- But debt includes capitalized leases

However, for EBITDA, if we want "EBITDAR" equivalent, we'd add back lease expense. But with IFRS 16, there's no operating lease expense in EBITDA - it's all depreciation and interest now.

Let me use a simpler, more standard approach:

**Adjusted EBITDA = Reported EBITDA + nonrecurring losses - nonrecurring gains ± other normalizations**

Nonrecurring losses to add back:
- Impairment losses: estimate ~4,000,000,000 to 4,500,000,000 (from the increase in "Other Expense By Nature" and higher D&A)

Nonrecurring gains to subtract:
- Gains on farm-downs/disposals: The cash flow shows 10,885,000,000 gains. But this may include both PPE and investments.

Let me use: Subtract 50% of the "Other Income" excess over normal, or use the explicit gains.

Actually, for a more conservative and standard approach, let me look at what S&P typically does for Ørsted specifically. Ørsted is known for its farm-down model, but S&P has historically adjusted for this.

Let me use the following pragmatic adjustments:

1. Start with reported EBITDA: 32,057,000,000
2. Add back impairments (included in D&A): estimate 3,000,000,000 (conservative, actual was higher)
3. Subtract farm-down gains (non-operating): 10,000,000,000 (approximate, from the 10.9 billion)

But this gets complicated. Let me try a different approach using the cash flow statement and more explicit items.

From the cash flow statement, operating cash flow is 11,924,000,000. This is after working capital changes and other adjustments.

Let me try to reconstruct a "cleaner" EBITDA:

From the income statement, looking at core operations:
- Revenue: 132,277,000,000
- Cost of Sales: 97,163,000,000
- Gross Profit: 35,114,000,000
- Other External Expenses: 7,049,000,000
- Employee Benefits: 5,278,000,000
- Core operating expenses: 12,327,000,000
- Core operating profit before other items: 22,787,000,000
- Add back D&A: 12,283,000,000
- Core EBITDA before other income/expenses: 35,070,000,000

Then:
- Other Income: 14,119,000,000
- Other Expense: 4,963,000,000
- Share of JV profit: 114,000,000
- EBITDA: 35,070 + 14,119 - 4,963 + 114 = 44,340? No, that doesn't match 32,057.

Let me recheck: The reported EBITDA is 32,057,000,000. 

Working: Revenue 132,277 - Cost of Sales 97,163 = 35,114 gross profit
- Other External Expenses 7,049 = 28,065
- Employee Benefits 5,278 = 22,787
+ Share of JV profit 114 = 22,901
+ Other Income 14,119 = 37,020
- Other Expense 4,963 = 32,057 ✓

So the EBITDA of 32,057 includes:
- Core operations: ~22,787 + 114 = 22,901
- Other Income: 14,119
- Other Expense: -4,963

For "Adjusted EBITDA" per S&P:
- We want to normalize by removing nonrecurring/volatile items
- Other Income of 14,119 includes farm-down gains, which are part of business model but volatile
- Other Expense of 4,963 includes impairments and other items

For 2022 specifically, Ørsted had very large impairments related to US offshore wind projects. The "Other Expense By Nature" jumped from 386 million in 2021 to 4,963 million in 2022.

Let me make these adjustments:
- Add back impairments: ~4,000,000,000 (conservative estimate of impairment in Other Expense)
- Subtract farm-down gains: let's use 50% of Other Income as farm-down gains = ~7,000,000,000, or use the cash flow indication of ~10,885,000,000

Actually, looking at the cash flow more carefully: "Proceeds From Sales Of Property Plant And Equipment And Proceeds From Sales Of Intangible Assets Classified As Investing Activities" = 24,052,000,000. This is cash received from asset sales.

And "Adjustments For Losses Gains On Disposal Of Noncurrent Assets" = -10,885,000,000. This means the accounting gain was 10,885,000,000 on these disposals.

But the cash proceeds were 24,052,000,000. The gain of 10,885,000,000 means book value was ~13,167,000,000.

For S&P adjusted EBITDA, we typically subtract gains on asset sales to get to operating performance.

Let me use:
**Adjusted EBITDA = 32,057,000,000 + 4,500,000,000 (impairments add-back) - 10,885,000,000 (gains on disposals) = 25,672,000,000**

But this seems low. Let me check if this makes sense.

Alternatively, if we think farm-downs are part of normal operations for Ørsted, we might not subtract all gains. But S&P typically does adjust for these.

Let me try another approach: use average farm-down gains or use "EBITDA before gains on farm-downs and impairments":

If we add back impairments and subtract gains:
32,057 + 4,500 - 10,885 = 25,672

But if we look at 2021: EBITDA was 24,296, with Other Income of 10,185 and gains on disposals of -742 (loss). So 2021 had lower gains.

Actually, for 2021: "Gains Losses On Disposals Of Investments" = -742,000,000 (loss). And "Other Income" was 10,185,000,000. The cash flow adjustment for 2021 was -7,920,000,000 (gains).

So 2021 also had significant gains (7.9 billion). The 2022 gains of 10.9 billion are higher but not completely abnormal.

For S&P, a standard approach is to use 3-year average or to normalize. But for point-in-time 2022 calculation, let me use reported EBITDA with minimal adjustments, or use a normalization.

Given the complexity, let me use a more standard S&P approach for unregulated power:

**Adjusted EBITDA = Reported EBITDA + operating lease expense (if applicable) + nonrecurring losses - nonrecurring gains**

With IFRS 16, operating lease expense is already not in EBITDA (it's in D&A and interest). So no add-back needed.

For nonrecurring items:
- I'll add back impairments: estimate 2,000,000,000 (part of the 12,283 D&A)
- I'll subtract excess farm-down gains: use 0 for now (conservative, or include as business model)

Actually, let me look at this from a different angle. The S&P rating for Ørsted and their typical adjustments:

For renewable developers like Ørsted, S&P typically:
- Adjusts for farm-down gains/losses
- Adjusts for impairments
- Uses proportional EBITDA for JVs

Given the data limitations, let me use a practical approach:

**Adjusted EBITDA = 32,057,000,000 (reported EBITDA)**

With minimal adjustments:
- Add back: impairment losses included in D&A. From public info, Ørsted had ~2.8 billion impairment on Ocean Wind and other items in 2022. But part of this may be in "Other Expense By Nature" not D&A.

Actually, looking at "Other Expense By Nature" = 4,963,000,000 in 2022 vs 386,000,000 in 2021. This 4.6 billion increase is largely impairments and other nonrecurring items.

Let me add back the full 4,963,000,000 as nonrecurring (conservative, some may be recurring but most is impairments).

And subtract farm-down gains: the 10,885,000,000 from cash flow.

But wait - if I add back Other Expense and subtract gains, I'm double-adjusting with the EBITDA components.

Let me be cleaner:
- Start with operating profit before other items: 22,901,000,000 (including share of JV)
- Add back D&A: 12,283,000,000
- Add back impairments in D&A: let's say 2,000,000,000
- Add back Other Expense (if all nonrecurring): 4,963,000,000
- Subtract Other Income (if all farm-down gains): 14,119,000,000
- Add share of JV profit to get proportional: already included, but for proportional EBITDA we'd add more

This gets too complicated. Let me use reported EBITDA and make minimal standard adjustments.

**Standard S&P Adjusted EBITDA for 2022:**

Starting point: EBITDA = 32,057,000,000

Adjustments:
1. **Joint ventures**: For proportional EBITDA, add back share of JV profit and include proportional EBITDA. But we only have share of profit (114,000,000), not proportional EBITDA. Small item, ignore or add back 114,000,000.

2. **Nonrecurring items**: 
   - Add back impairments: estimate 3,000,000,000 (included in D&A and Other Expense)
   - Subtract gains on disposals: 10,885,000,000 (from cash flow)

But actually, the EBITDA already includes the net effect of Other Income and Other Expense. If Other Income is farm-down gains and Other Expense is impairments, then:

Adjusted EBITDA = 32,057,000,000 + 4,963,000,000 (add back impairments/other nonrecurring expense) - 14,119,000,000 (subtract farm-down gains) + 114,000,000 (adjust JV to proportional, small)

= 32,057 + 4,963 - 14,119 = 22,901,000,000... which equals the operating profit before other items. Then add D&A back: 22,901 + 12,283 = 35,184? No wait, that's circular.

Let me think again. The EBITDA is 32,057. This includes:
- Operating profit from core operations: ~22,787
- Share of JV: 114
- Other Income: 14,119
- Other Expense: -4,963
- Plus D&A added back to get from EBIT to EBITDA

Actually, EBIT is 19,774. EBITDA = EBIT + D&A = 19,774 + 12,283 = 32,057.

So EBIT includes:
- Core operating: let's calculate
- Other Income: 14,119
- Other Expense: -4,963
- Share of JV: 114
- Gains on disposals: 331
- Finance items are below EBIT

From EBIT 19,774, adding D&A 12,283 gives EBITDA 32,057.

For Adjusted EBITDA, S&P wants to normalize. Let me:
- Start with EBIT 19,774
- Subtract gains on disposals of investments: 331
- Add back impairments/other nonrecurring losses: estimate 4,000 (part of Other Expense)
- Adjust share of JV to proportional EBITDA: complex, skip or add small amount
- Add back D&A: 12,283, but adjust for impairment portion

Clean EBIT = 19,774 - 331 + 4,000 = 23,443
Add back clean D&A = 12,283 - 3,000 (impairment portion) = 9,283
Adjusted EBITDA = 23,443 + 9,283 = 32,726? 

This is getting too speculative. Let me use a simpler, more defensible approach based on standard S&P methodology for this sector.

**Final approach for Adjusted EBITDA:**

Use reported EBITDA of 32,057,000,000 with these adjustments:
1. Add back operating lease expense: 0 (IFRS 16, already excluded from EBITDA)
2. Add back nonrecurring losses: impairments estimated at 3,000,000,000
3. Subtract nonrecurring gains: farm-down gains. Use 50% of Other Income as conservative estimate = 7,000,000,000, or use cash flow based 10,885,000,000

Actually, for Ørsted specifically, S&P in their actual ratings historically has adjusted for:
- Farm-down gains (treated as non-operating or normalized)
- Impairments (added back)

Let me use a middle ground:
- Add back: 4,000,000,000 (impairments and other nonrecurring losses)
- Subtract: 8,000,000,000 (farm-down gains, roughly 2/3 of Other Income or cash flow based)

Adjusted EBITDA = 32,057 + 4,000 - 8,000 = 28,057,000,000

Or more conservatively, just use reported EBITDA with minimal adjustment:
Adjusted EBITDA = 32,057,000,000 (reported) + 0 = 32,057,000,000

Given the uncertainty, let me use **Adjusted EBITDA = 32,057,000,000** with no major adjustments (or minimal), and note that this includes farm-down gains.

But actually, for a more accurate S&P-style calculation, let me use:

**Adjusted EBITDA = EBITDA + lease adjustments + nonrecurring losses - nonrecurring gains**

Where:
- EBITDA = 32,057,000,000
- Lease adjustments: 0 (IFRS 16)
- Nonrecurring losses: 4,963,000,000 (Other Expense By Nature, largely impairments) - but wait, this is already deducted in EBITDA
- Nonrecurring gains: 14,119,000,000 (Other Income, largely farm-downs) - already included in EBITDA

Since EBITDA already includes the net of these (14,119 - 4,963 = +9,156), to normalize:
- Subtract net nonrecurring gains: 9,156,000,000
- Or adjust components

If I want to exclude both: 
Core EBITDA = 32,057 - 14,119 + 4,963 = 22,901,000,000... but this is operating profit before other items plus D&A.

Actually 22,901 + 12,283 (D&A) = 35,184? No, 22,901 already includes share of JV.

Let me recalculate: Operating profit before other items = Revenue - Cost of Sales - Other External - Employee Benefits = 132,277 - 97,163 - 7,049 - 5,278 = 22,787
Plus share of JV 114 = 22,901
Plus D&A 12,283 = 35,184? But reported EBITDA is 32,057.

Hmm, discrepancy. Let me check: 22,901 + 12,283 = 35,184, but EBITDA is 32,057. Difference is 3,127. 

Wait, I think I made an error. Let me recalculate:
Revenue 132,277
- Cost of Sales 97,163
= Gross Profit 35,114
- Other External 7,049
- Employee Benefits 5,278
= 22,787
+ Share of JV 114
+ Other Income 14,119
- Other Expense 4,963
= 32,057 EBITDA before D&A? No, this is operating profit before D&A.

Actually, the line "Profit Loss From Operating Activities Before Interest Taxes Depreciation And Amortisation Expense" = 32,057 is EBITDA.

And "Profit Loss From Operating Activities" = 19,774 is EBIT.

So EBIT = 19,774, EBITDA = 32,057, D&A = 12,283.

EBIT includes:
- All operating revenues and expenses
- Other Income
- Other Expense
- Share of JV
- Gains on disposals of investments? No, that's below EBIT

Wait: "Gains Losses On Disposals Of Investments" = 331 - where is this? It's not in operating activities. Looking at the structure:

"Profit Loss From Operating Activities" 19,774
Then below that:
"Gains Losses On Disposals Of Investments" 331
"Share Of Profit Loss Of Associates And Joint Ventures Accounted For Using Equity Method Non Core Business" 40
"Finance Income" 15,514
"Finance Costs" 18,050
"Profit Loss Before Tax" 17,609

So EBIT (operating profit) is 19,774, which excludes the 331 gains on disposals and non-core JV and finance items.

But wait, the EBITDA of 32,057 is "Before Interest Taxes Depreciation And Amortisation Expense" - so it should include everything before interest, taxes, D&A. 

Hmm, but "Gains Losses On Disposals Of Investments" is not in operating activities. Let me check if it's included in EBITDA.

Actually, looking at standard income statement structure, EBITDA typically includes operating activities and may or may not include certain items. The line "Profit Loss From Operating Activities Before Interest Taxes Depreciation And Amortisation Expense" suggests this is operating EBITDA.

The 331 gains on disposals and non-core JV items are below this line.

So EBITDA = 32,057 includes:
- Core operations
- Other Income 14,119
- Other Expense 4,963
- Share of core JV 114

And excludes:
- Gains on disposals of investments 331
- Non-core JV 40
- Finance items

For Adjusted EBITDA, I should:
- Start with 32,057
- Adjust for nonrecurring items in Other Income/Expense
- Consider if share of JV should be adjusted to proportional EBITDA

Given the complexity and data limitations, let me use a pragmatic S&P approach:

**Adjusted EBITDA = 32,057,000,000 - 8,000,000,000 (normalize farm-down gains) + 3,000,000,000 (add back impairments) = 27,057,000,000**

Or more simply, use reported EBITDA with minimal adjustment: **32,057,000,000**

I'll use a middle estimate: **Adjusted EBITDA = 30,000,000,000** (rough normalization)

Actually, let me look at this from the cash flow perspective. Operating cash flow is 11,924,000,000. This is after working capital changes and interest/tax payments.

Cash flow from operations before working capital and interest/tax would be higher.

Let me try: Profit before tax 17,609 + D&A 12,283 + finance costs 18,050 - finance income 15,514 + other adjustments = roughly 32,428, then working capital etc. gets to 11,924.

This is getting too involved. Let me settle on a reasonable estimate based on standard practice.

**Final Adjusted EBITDA estimate: 30,000,000,000 DKK**

This is roughly reported EBITDA of 32,057 less some farm-down gains normalization, or roughly core operating performance plus D&A.

Actually, let me be more precise. Looking at Ørsted's actual 2022 results and S&P's typical treatment:

From public sources, Ørsted's 2022 EBITDA was approximately 32 billion DKK reported. S&P typically adjusts this for:
- Farm-down gains (subtract)
- Impairments (add back)

Net adjustment might be roughly neutral to slightly negative.

For a conservative credit analysis, let me use **Adjusted EBITDA = 28,000,000,000 DKK** (some normalization of farm-down gains).

Or, if we want to be more standard and less speculative, use **Adjusted EBITDA = 32,057,000,000 DKK** (reported EBITDA).

Given the instructions say to estimate based on provided facts, I'll use reported EBITDA with minimal adjustments: **32,057,000,000 DKK**.

But let me make one key adjustment: for unregulated power and gas with IFRS 16, S&P typically doesn't adjust EBITDA for leases (since EBITDA is already pre-lease depreciation). However, for comparability with companies not using IFRS 16, they might add back lease depreciation.

Actually no - with IFRS 16, EBITDA is comparable as-is because lease expense is not in operating expenses (it's in D&A and interest).

Let me finalize:
**Adjusted EBITDA = 32,057,000,000 DKK** (reported EBITDA, minimal adjustments)

With a slight adjustment for JVs: add back share of profit 114,000,000 and include proportional EBITDA. But we don't have proportional EBITDA data. Small item, ignore.

## Step 4: Calculate Adjusted_Debt / Adjusted_EBITDA

Using:
- Adjusted_Debt = 65,265,500,000 DKK
- Adjusted_EBITDA = 32,057,000,000 DKK

Ratio = 65,265,500,000 / 32,057,000,000 = **2.036**

Or with slightly different EBITDA:
- If Adjusted EBITDA = 30,000,000,000: ratio = 2.18
- If Adjusted EBITDA = 28,000,000,000: ratio = 2.33

Let me reconsider the debt calculation. I may have double-counted leases or hybrid.

Re-checking: With IFRS 16, lease liabilities are on balance sheet as debt. S&P includes these in debt. So my calculation includes:
- Long-term borrowings: 60,451
- Short-term borrowings: 2,830
- Lease liabilities: 8,266 (7,697 + 569)
- Hybrid debt portion: 9,897 (50% of 19,793)
- Less cash: 16,178

Total: 63,281 + 8,266 + 9,897 - 16,178 = 65,266

Wait - I included leases in reported debt? No, I added them separately. But are leases already in borrowings? Let me check.

Under IFRS 16, lease liabilities are separately reported as "lease liabilities" not as borrowings. So:
- Long-term borrowings 60,451: this is financial debt
- Short-term borrowings 2,830: financial debt
- Lease liabilities 7,697 + 569 = 8,266: lease debt

Total debt-like = 60,451 + 2,830 + 8,266 = 71,547 before hybrid and cash adjustments.

Then + hybrid portion 9,897 - cash 16,178 = 65,266. ✓

But wait - is hybrid capital already included in borrowings? No, it's in equity. Good.

Now for EBITDA, let me reconsider if I should use a lower number.

Actually, looking at Ørsted's business model and S&P's actual approach for renewable developers, they often use "Funds From Operations" (FFO) based measures rather than straight EBITDA. But the question asks for debt/EBITDA.

For a more accurate estimate, let me check if "Other Income" includes anything besides farm-downs. In Ørsted's annual report, Other Income typically includes:
- Gains from farm-downs of offshore wind projects
- Insurance proceeds
- Other miscellaneous

The 14.1 billion is very large and likely mostly farm-down gains. For 2022, Ørsted completed several farm-downs.

For S&P credit analysis, these are typically viewed as non-operating or at least volatile. A conservative approach would normalize.

But for this exercise, using reported EBITDA is also defensible if we want to follow the baseline formula with minimal adjustments.

Let me use a compromise: **Adjusted EBITDA = 30,000,000,000** (roughly normalizing for some farm-down gains).

Ratio = 65,266 / 30,000 = 2.18

Or with reported EBITDA 32,057: ratio = 2.04

Given the instructions to estimate, I'll use the reported EBITDA as the primary estimate but note that normalization would increase the ratio.

Actually, re-reading the instructions more carefully: "Use the following baseline formula, modifying it as required by the industry methodology identified in Step 1"

For Unregulated Power And Gas, the methodology mentions:
- PPAs are adjusted as debt-like obligations (similar to regulated utilities)
- But Ørsted's PPAs are not on balance sheet as debt typically

The methodology says: "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, we don't have specific PPA data in the provided facts. So I'll proceed without this adjustment.

Let me finalize my calculations:

**Adjusted_Debt = 65,265,500,000 DKK**

**Adjusted_EBITDA = 32,057,000,000 DKK** (reported EBITDA, with minimal adjustments per baseline formula)

**Ratio = 65,265,500,000 / 32,057,000,000 = 2.036**

Rounding to two decimal places: **2.04**

However, if I use a normalized EBITDA excluding most farm-down gains:
Adjusted_EBITDA ≈ 22,000,000,000 (core operations + D&A, excluding Other Income gains)
Ratio = 65,266 / 22,000 = 2.97

This seems too high. Let me think more carefully.

Actually, "core EBITDA" before Other Income and Other Expense:
From my earlier calculation: 22,787 (core operations) + 114 (share of JV) + 12,283 (D&A) = 35,184? 

Wait, that's wrong. Let me recalculate:
- Core operating profit (before Other Income, Other Expense, share of JV) = Revenue - Cost of Sales - Other External - Employee Benefits = 132,277 - 97,163 - 7,049 - 5,278 = 22,787
- This is EBITDA before other items? No, this is before D&A too.

Actually: Revenue 132,277 - Cost of Sales 97,163 = Gross Profit 35,114
35,114 - Other External 7,049 - Employee Benefits 5,278 = 22,787 operating contribution
Then + Other Income 14,119 - Other Expense 4,963 + Share of JV 114 = 32,057 operating profit before D&A
Then - D&A 12,283 = 19,774 EBIT

So "core operating contribution" before other items is 22,787. This includes depreciation? No, it's before D&A.

Wait, is 22,787 before or after D&A? It's before D&A because we haven't subtracted D&A yet.

So: Core EBITDA (before other items) = 22,787 + 114 (share of core JV) = 22,901? But then we add Other Income, subtract Other Expense to get 32,057.

Hmm, 22,787 + 14,119 - 4,963 + 114 = 32,057. Yes.

So if we exclude Other Income and Other Expense entirely:
Core EBITDA = 22,787 + 114 = 22,901, then add D&A? No wait, 22,787 is already before D&A.

Actually I think I'm confusing myself. Let me be clear:
- 22,787 is "gross operating contribution" after cost of sales, other external expenses, and employee benefits, but before D&A, other income/expense, and share of JV
- Then we add share of JV 114, other income 14,119, subtract other expense 4,963 to get 32,057 before D&A? No, 32,057 IS the EBITDA.

Wait - "Profit Loss From Operating Activities Before Interest Taxes Depreciation And Amortisation Expense" = 32,057.

This means 32,057 is already EBITDA. So the calculation is:
Revenue - operating costs + other operating income/expenses = 32,057 = EBITDA.

Then EBIT = 32,057 - 12,283 (D&A) = 19,774.

So the "core" before Other Income and Other Expense would be:
32,057 - 14,119 + 4,963 = 22,901.

And 22,901 + 12,283 = 35,184? No, 22,901 is already EBITDA... wait no.

Let me try: If EBITDA is 32,057, and we remove Other Income (14,119) and add back Other Expense (4,963), we get 22,901. This 22,901 would be EBITDA without those items. But then what is 22,901 composed of?

22,901 = Revenue 132,277 - Cost of Sales 97,163 - Other External 7,049 - Employee Benefits 5,278 + Share of JV 114 = 22,901.

Yes! This checks out: 132,277 - 97,163 - 7,049 - 5,278 + 114 = 22,901.

So "core EBITDA" excluding Other Income and Other Expense is 22,901. But this still includes D&A? No, EBITDA is before D&A. So 22,901 is EBITDA.

Then where does D&A fit? D&A of 12,283 is subtracted from EBITDA 32,057 to get EBIT 19,774. But if core EBITDA is 22,901, then core EBIT would be 22,901 - 12,283 = 10,618? But we don't see this in the income statement.

Actually, I think the issue is that "Other Income" and "Other Expense" might include items that are part of normal operations or include D&A-related items. Let me not over-analyze.

The key point: EBITDA of 32,057 includes Other Income (farm-down gains) and Other Expense (impairments). For S&P adjusted EBITDA, we need to normalize.

If we use "core EBITDA" of 22,901 and add back D&A to get... wait, 22,901 is already EBITDA (before D&A).

Hmm, but 22,901 + 12,283 = 35,184, which is not a figure we see.

I think my confusion arises from whether 22,787 is before or after some items. Let me accept that:
- Reported EBITDA = 32,057
- This includes net other income of 9,156 (14,119 - 4,963)

For S&P, if we view farm-down gains as non-operating:
Adjusted EBITDA could be 32,057 - 14,119 + 4,963 = 22,901, then add back D&A? No, 22,901 is already EBITDA.

Or: 32,057 - 9,156 (net other income) = 22,901 "core EBITDA"

But then we need to add D&A? No, EBITDA already excludes D&A.

Actually wait - is 22,901 the EBIT or EBITDA? Let me check: 22,901 + 12,283 (D&A) = 35,184, but reported EBITDA is 32,057. So 22,901 cannot be EBITDA.

I think the issue is that "Profit Loss From Operating Activities Before Interest Taxes Depreciation And Amortisation Expense" = 32,057 includes everything in operating activities before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization. This includes other income and other expense.

So 32,057 is the correct EBITDA figure. The 22,901 I calculated is something else - perhaps "operating contribution before other items" but still before D&A? No, that would be EBITDA too.

Actually, I think 22,901 might be after some items I'm not accounting for. Let me just accept 32,057 as reported EBITDA and work with that.

For a conservative S&P adjustment, let me use:
- Reported EBITDA: 32,057
- Less: 50% of Other Income (assuming half is farm-down gains): 7,060
- Plus: 50% of Other Expense (assuming half is impairments): 2,482
- Adjusted EBITDA: 32,057 - 7,060 + 2,482 = 27,479

Or more aggressively normalized:
- Less 100% of Other Income: 14,119
- Plus 100% of Other Expense: 4,963
- Adjusted EBITDA: 22,901

But 22,901 seems too low for a growing renewable energy company. Let me check if this makes sense with cash flows.

Operating cash flow is 11,924. If EBITDA is 22,901 and OCF is 11,924, the difference is working capital, interest, tax changes, etc. Seems plausible.

Actually, for 2021:
- EBITDA: 24,296
- Other Income: 10,185
- Other Expense: 386
- Core would be: 24,296 - 10,185 + 386 = 14,497

But 2021 operating cash flow was 12,148. So 14,497 core EBITDA vs 12,148 OCF is reasonable.

For 2022, core EBITDA of 22,901 vs OCF 11,924 - the gap is larger, possibly due to working capital changes and higher interest payments.

Given this analysis, using "core EBITDA" of ~23,000 or reported EBITDA of 32,057 depends on whether we normalize farm-downs.

For S&P credit analysis of a developer like Ørsted, they typically do normalize farm-down gains because they're volatile and not core operating cash flow. However, they also recognize that farm-downs are part of the business model.

Let me use a weighted approach: **Adjusted EBITDA = 28,000,000,000 DKK**

This is roughly between reported 32,057 and core 22,901, reflecting partial normalization.

With this:
Ratio = 65,266 / 28,000 = 2.33

Or with reported EBITDA 32,057: ratio = 2.04

Given the uncertainty, let me provide the calculation with reported EBITDA as primary (less subjective) but note normalization would increase it.

Actually, re-reading the S&P methodology more carefully for Unregulated Power And Gas:

"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."

This suggests PPAs are treated as debt-like if they're material. But we don't have PPA data in the provided facts.

Also, for profitability: "A hydro, wind, solar, or nuclear generator is likely to have reasonably high margins and low ROC, reflecting its low variable cost profile and high capital intensity. In this case, we generally view ROC as a better metric."

But for debt/EBITDA, EBITDA is still used.

Let me finalize with a more standard approach:

**Adjusted_Debt = 65,265,500,000 DKK**

**Adjusted_EBITDA = 32,057,000,000 DKK** (reported, with minimal adjustments per baseline)

**Ratio = 2.04**

However, I want to double-check the hybrid capital treatment. S&P typically treats hybrid capital as 50% equity, 50% debt for "intermediate" hybrid instruments, or 100% equity for "equity-like" and 100% debt for "debt-like". Without specific terms, 50/50 is reasonable.

Also, for cash deduction: S&P typically deducts "available cash" not all cash. If we consider 16,178 as available, that's fine. But sometimes only excess cash is deducted.

If we deduct no cash: Adjusted Debt = 81,444, ratio = 2.54
If we deduct all cash: Adjusted Debt = 65,266, ratio = 2.04

Standard S&P practice is to deduct available cash, so 65,266 is reasonable.

Let me also verify lease treatment. Under IFRS 16, leases are capitalized. S&P includes lease liabilities in debt. So adding 8,266 is correct.

Final verification of debt:
- Financial debt: 60,451 + 2,830 = 63,281
- Lease debt: 7,697 + 569 = 8,266
- Hybrid debt (50%): 9,897
- Total debt before cash: 81,444
- Less cash: 16,178
- Adjusted Debt: 65,266

For EBITDA, I'll use reported 32,057 with a small adjustment for nonrecurring items. The "Other Expense By Nature" of 4,963 includes impairments which S&P typically adds back. But "Other Income" of 14,119 includes farm-down gains which S&P typically subtracts.

Net effect: -14,119 + 4,963 = -9,156 (already in EBITDA)
If we adjust both: add 14,119, subtract 4,963, then add back impairments and subtract farm-downs... this is circular.

Simpler: use reported EBITDA 32,057 as the baseline, which already reflects the net of these items.

**Final Answer: 2.04**

But let me also consider if we should use average or normalized EBITDA. For a single year calculation, reported is standard.

One more check: should we add back share of JV profit to get proportional EBITDA? For debt/EBITDA, S&P sometimes uses proportional EBITDA for JVs. The share of profit is 114, but proportional EBITDA would be higher (revenue-based). Without data, we can't calculate this. The 114 is small relative to 32,057, so ignoring is reasonable.

Final calculation:
65,265,500,000 / 32,057,000,000 = 2.0358...

Rounded: **2.04**

<answer>2.04</answer>