Proving the financial capabilities of exfin software.

Key Takeaways

Where EY and exfin used the same methodology the two models produced identical results. 

  • Accurate financial metrics – Financial projections based on detailed engineering models and real-world wave resources
  • Accelerated project development – To screen out weaker concepts earlier, and accelerate the development and refinement of innovative designs with genuine prospects
  • Design optimisation – To explore potential advances in energy generation and identified opportunities for cost reduction
  • Clarity – Complete transparency of both financial and engineering design processes
  • Consistency – Suitable for all stages in the design process, from concept development, to model scale prototypes, and right through to full scale versions
  • Environmental and societal benefits – Reduces entry barriers to new developers and facilitates growth of wave energy sector in general

Project Background

Exfin is a powerful techno-financial software tool built to IEC standards, currently used for wind, tidal, wave and combined platform projects. It combines the technical and the financial aspects of a project to quickly reach the all-important Key Performance Indicators: Net Present Value, Internal Rate of Return and Levelised Cost of Energy.  

By standardising the process, Exfin allows the user to focus on optimising a renewable energy project rather than building the model from scratch and worrying about its validity.  Over the past year Exceedence Ltd (EXC), as part of a SEAI funded project, have been developing the current desktop version of the software into a cloud-based platform.  

Our Role

The objective of the Case Study was to identify areas of commonality and differences between the two financial models, which has been used by EXC to independently verify the software’s output.

During this SEAI project, EXC engaged EY to build a generic challenger model, against which Exfin could prepare a case study to assess comparability. EXC provided the initial input to run the model, and simultaneously built a model using the same input in the Exfin software.  EXC provided the initial input to run the model, and simultaneously built a model using the same input in the Exfin software.  

Results

The tables below show the results in the EY model as compared with the results in exfin in a Profit & Loss table for one year, as well as the ‘earnings after tax” over 20 years. 

Year 2020 EY (in ‘000 EUR) Exfin (in EUR) 
Revenue 59,826.55020 59,826,550.20 
Operational Costs (OPEX) (36,893.03929) (36,893,039.29) 
EBITDA 22,933,510.91 22,933,510.91 
Depreciation (11,258.68141) (11,258,681.41) 
EBIT 11,674.82950 11,674,829,50 
Financing Costs  (6,571.19950) (6,571,199.50) 
Earnings before tax 5,103.63000 5,130,630.00 
Tax (deferred) (637.95375) (637,953.75) 
Earnings after tax 4,465.67625 4,465676.25 
Profit & Loss table for year 2020 showing EY and Exfin model results side-by-side  

Where EY and EXC used the same methodology the two models produced identical results.

YR EY Challenger exfin 
 Finance costs Tax Earnings after tax Finance costs   Tax Earnings after tax 
 (EUR ‘000) (EUR ‘000) (EUR ‘000)  (EUR)   (EUR)   (EUR)  
1 -6,571.19950  –  637.95375  4,465.67625  6,571,199.50  637,953.75  4,465,676.25  
2 -6,159.31207  –  689.43968  4,826.07775  6,159,312.07  689,439.68  4,826,077.75  
3 -5,730.64371  – 743.02322  5,201.16256  5,730,643.71  743,023.22  5,201,162.56  
4 -5,284.51074  –   798.78984  5,591.52891  5,284,510.74  798,789.84  5,591,528.91  
5 -4,820.20163  –  856.82848  5,997.79939   4,820,201.63  856,828.48  5,997,799.39  
6 -4,336.97584  –  917.23171  6,420.62195  4,336,975.84  917,231.71  6,420,621.95  
7 -3,834.06270  –  980.09585  6,860.67095  3,834,062.70  980,095.85  6,860,670.95  
8 -3,310.66009  – 1,045.52118  7,318.64823   3,310,660.09  1,045,521.18  7,318,648.23  
9 -2,765.93325  – 1,113.61203  7,795.28421   2,765,933.25  1,113,612.03  7,795,284.21  
10 -2,199.01341  – 1,184.47701  8,291.33908   2,199,013.41  1,184,477.01  8,291,339.08  
11 -1,608.99637  -1,258.22914  8,807.60399   1,608,996.37  1,258,229.14  8,807,603.99  
12 –   994.94113  -1,334.98605  9,344.90232       994,941.13  1,334,986.05  9,344,902.32  
13 –   355.86833  -1,414.87015  9,904.09102       355,868.33  1,414,870.15  9,904,091.02  
14 –          -1,459.35369  10,215.47581                        –    1,459,353.69  10,215,475.81  
15 –         -1,459.35369  10,215.47581                        –    1,459,353.69  10,215,475.81  
16 –         -1,459.35369  10,215.47581                        –    1,459,353.69  10,215,475.81  
17 –          -1,459.35369  10,215.47581                        –    1,459,353.69  10,215,475.81  
18 –    -1,459.35369  10,215.47581                        –    1,459,353.69  10,215,475.81  
19 –          -1,459.35369  10,215.47581                        –    1,459,353.69  10,215,475.81  
20 –          -1,459.35369  10,215.47581                        –    1,459,353.69  10,215,475.81  
Financing cost, tax, after tax earnings for EY and Exfin results for entire project