Screening an energy project in 30 minutes: claims, evidence and red flags
Screen Ukrainian energy project teasers with an evidence matrix, ten red flags and a decision record before commissioning due diligence.
Jurisdiction: Ukraine. Sources reviewed . Evergreen framework. Next scheduled editorial review: . Material rule changes require earlier review.
An initial screen should decide whether a project merits further work, which information is missing and which condition prevents progress. It cannot complete due diligence in thirty minutes. Use the time allocation below as a working method, not a certification or investment score.
First reconfirm availability, the seller’s authority to discuss the transaction and the date of the information. A public listing may remain visible after an opportunity is paused, withdrawn or changed.
A five-gate screen
Table — scroll horizontally if needed
| Time allocation | Decision | Minimum information | Output |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0–5 minutes | Does it fit the mandate? | Technology, stage, broad region, transaction structure and price basis | Fit / mismatch / unknown |
| 5–10 minutes | What is actually for sale? | Ownership overview, included assets and rights, seller role | Defined transaction perimeter |
| 10–18 minutes | What supports readiness? | Land, grid and permitting status with document references | Evidence gaps and dependencies |
| 18–25 minutes | Can the economics be reconciled? | Revenue route, cash collection, residual CAPEX, debt and funding | Principal value drivers and funding need |
| 25–30 minutes | What is the next decision? | Ranked issues, responsible persons and disclosure scope | Proceed, request clarification or decline |
Do not request exact infrastructure coordinates or confidential grid files for an initial fit assessment. An approved non-sensitive summary can identify documentary status; full evidence follows the agreed private process.
Read the teaser as a set of claims
“Operating” should prompt questions about commissioned scope, delivered output, commercial arrangements and actual receipts. “RTB” should prompt a defined construction scope and evidence. “Advanced development” leaves identifiable work outstanding. A Qualified Project can meet an initial screening threshold without being RTB.
Use the Project Passport evidence framework for material facts. A Passport structures information; it does not replace legal, technical, tax, financial or environmental due diligence.
Table — scroll horizontally if needed
| Claim | Status to record | Follow-up |
|---|---|---|
| Seller says the site is controlled | SELLER DECLARED | Identify the right, holder, source and remaining term |
| A signed connection package is supplied | DOCUMENT CONFIRMED for its stated scope | Check amendments, validity, conditions and completion |
| A specialist reviewed a design | EXPERT REVIEWED for the defined review | Identify competence, scope, date and limitations |
| Revenue records are absent | NOT PROVIDED | Request them; absence of a file is not proof of zero revenue |
| Operating history is irrelevant to an unbuilt project | NOT APPLICABLE with rationale | Use development evidence and assumptions instead |
Ten red flags to investigate
- The ownership chain or seller’s role cannot be explained.
- Capacity alternates between MW AC, MWp DC, MW and MWh without definitions.
- Requested connection capacity is presented as physically usable capacity.
- An RTB claim excludes the cable route or external works without saying so.
- Historical revenue cannot be reconciled to settlements and bank receipts.
- BESS revenues reserve and trade the same capacity simultaneously.
- The asking price excludes shareholder loans or substantial completion spending.
- The model assumes an unsigned PPA, service award or financing approval as certain.
- Documents refer to different entities, capacities or project versions.
- The summary has no review date or current availability confirmation.
These are reasons to investigate, not automatic findings of fraud or legal non-compliance. An explained gap with a credible owner, budget and resolution route can support a development transaction; an unexplained gap prevents a responsible conclusion.
Compare projects on the same basis
Use a common sheet: included rights, current stage, evidenced import/export, revenue certainty, acquisition consideration, debt treatment, residual capital, first-cash assumptions and top dependencies. Mark unknowns explicitly. Compare price per MW only after agreeing capacity and value definitions; transaction consideration per MW is not automatically enterprise value per MW.
Keep an evidence-based decision record instead of an AI rating: which mandate conditions are met, which facts remain unconfirmed, who must answer, and what can justify an indicative offer. Rank issues by whether they affect the right to proceed, funding or timing. The next step may be a scoped NDA and document request, rather than a price.
Read the acquisition guide for the later decision gates. Discuss your mandate with the evidence thresholds that matter to your team.