Three results determine the financeability of grid-connected solar projects: equity value, equity return, and tariff which a project can sign. This paper has determined the most significant input assumptions that contribute to net present value (NPV) margin, levered internal rate of return (LIRR), and the price that is necessary to sign a power purchase agreement (PPA). They are a project-finance cashflow model based on debt service coverage ratio (DSCR)-constrained amortizing debt, U.S. tax treatment to include the investment tax credit (ITC), interest capitalized on construction and a fixed-price PPA with smooth escalation. The analysis begins with a documented base case, varies a set of negotiated commonly negotiated inputs under systematically changing conditions price-solve and return-solve, capital expenditure per watt (including interconnection), bankable production (kilowatt-hours per kilowatt), base-year price and escalator, operations and maintenance cost, construction duration, debt advance rate and coupon, incentive and ITC transfer price, in a sensitivity analysis. Results indicate that there is a consistent hierarchy that the results are obtained in all three outcomes: delivered cost of capital, bankable production, and the base-year PPA price predominates the response of NPV margin, the LIRR and the required tariff. The secondary level under DSCR-based structuring using standard tenors, PPA escalation,

1routine O&M, construction time, and interest rate enhances early cash flows but does not alter the ranking of core drivers. By combining the outcome-specific rankings, one gets a single, transparent sensitivity ordering which can be directly used in screening and negotiation. The implication of these results is that the engineering to minimize delivered cost of capital and maximize net energy, coverage of stress testing during production and cost shocks, tariff requested indulgence, and interconnection cognizance and hazard must be the key concerns of developers, lenders, offtakers, and policy-makers. The modelling method, input set and ranking process are clearly defined so that the practitioners can repeat the analysis on other projects and portfolios and also incorporate the resulting hierarchy into underwriting procedures and in the procurement procedures