Let’s go step-by-step.  

**1. S&P’s hybrid cap rule**  
S&P limits equity credit for hybrids to 15% of total adjusted capital (debt + equity). Companies can issue more than that, but the excess won’t get equity credit, making it less efficient.

**2. Ørsted’s total adjusted capital at end-2022**  
- Total equity (including hybrids and non-controlling interests): **95,532 million DKK**  
- Total debt (noncurrent + current borrowings):  
  - Long-term borrowings: 60,451 million  
  - Short-term borrowings: 2,830 million  
  - Noncurrent lease liabilities: 7,697 million  
  - Current lease liabilities: 569 million  
Sum debt ≈ **71,547 million DKK**  

Total adjusted capital = 95,532 + 71,547 = **167,079 million DKK**  

**3. 15% cap in absolute terms**  
15% of 167,079 million = **25,062 million DKK**  

**4. Ørsted’s current hybrid capital**  
Hybrid capital at end-2022: **19,793 million DKK**  

**5. Current utilization vs. cap**  
19,793 / 25,062 ≈ **79% of the cap** already utilized.  

**6. Should they go to 100%?**  
They are already close to 80% of S&P’s cap. Going to 100% would mean adding about 5.3 billion DKK more hybrids, which could be done if needed, but the remaining headroom is limited. Given their high leverage and extensive capex, they may want flexibility down the road. But the question asks *to what extent they should utilize* the cap—given they are already at ~79%, 100% would imply full usage, which is plausible if they need to optimize WACC further, but not clearly necessary.  

However, since the company is capital-intensive and S&P’s cap is only 15%, it’s typical for such firms to fully utilize it to support investment-grade metrics. Therefore, **full utilization (100%)** would be consistent with maximizing equity credit while staying within rating boundaries.  

<answer>100%</answer>