**Step 1: Identify the relevant industry**

Ørsted A/S is a global leader in offshore wind energy and a major producer of onshore wind and solar energy. It has transitioned from fossil fuels to renewable energy.
*   **Regulated Utilities:** While Ørsted operates in the utility sector, its primary business model involves generating electricity from renewable sources (wind/solar) which is often sold via Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) or into merchant markets, rather than being a traditional regulated monopoly with cost-of-service regulation for its generation assets. However, it does have some regulated grid activities (though these were largely spun off or are a smaller part of the core generation business described in recent years). The provided text for "Unregulated Power And Gas" explicitly mentions "renewable generation companies" and states they "don't benefit from protective rate regulation" but may benefit from policy support/PPAs. Given Ørsted's profile as a renewable generator with significant exposure to merchant prices and PPAs, it fits best under **Unregulated Power And Gas**.
*   **Unregulated Power And Gas:** The methodology notes that for companies with "strongly protected unregulated revenue" (like long-term PPAs), specific volatility tables might apply, but the core ratio definitions generally follow the corporate baseline unless specific industry adjustments (like purchased power adjustments for integrated utilities) are mandated. The text states: "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, without specific details on the debt-like nature of PPAs in the provided facts, we will stick to the standard debt and EBITDA definitions, noting that Ørsted is primarily a generator.
*   **Conclusion:** We will apply the **Unregulated Power And Gas** framework. The financial risk profile section refers to "Corporate Methodology: Ratios And Adjustments" for specific calculations. Since no specific "purchased power" debt adjustment data is provided (e.g., take-or-pay contract values), we will use the reported debt and lease liabilities as the primary debt components, and the reported EBITDA with standard adjustments.

**Step 2: Estimate Adjusted_Debt**

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

From the facts (2022 data, ending 2023-01-01 balance sheet items represent the year-end 2022 position):
*   **Reported Debt:**
    *   Long-term Borrowings: 60,451,000,000 DKK
    *   Short-term Borrowings: 2,830,000,000 DKK
    *   Total Interest-Bearing Debt = 60,451 + 2,830 = 63,281,000,000 DKK
*   **Leases:**
    *   Noncurrent Lease Liabilities: 7,697,000,000 DKK
    *   Current Lease Liabilities: 569,000,000 DKK
    *   Total Leases = 7,697 + 569 = 8,266,000,000 DKK
*   **Hybrid Capital:**
    *   Hybrid Capital is reported in Equity (19,793,000,000 DKK). S&P typically treats hybrid capital as 50% debt and 50% equity for rating purposes, unless specified otherwise. The prompt asks for "hybrid_debt_portion". Standard S&P methodology includes 50% of hybrid capital as debt.
    *   Hybrid Debt Portion = 50% * 19,793,000,000 = 9,896,500,000 DKK.
*   **Pension Deficit:** Not explicitly provided in the balance sheet lines (usually in provisions or other liabilities). We will assume 0 or negligible based on available data, or that it is included in "Other Noncurrent Payables/Provisions" but without specific breakdown, we cannot adjust. We will proceed with 0 adjustment for pension deficit as it's not isolated.
*   **Guarantees/Other Debt-like items:** Not explicitly provided.
*   **Eligible Cash:**
    *   Cash: 16,178,000,000 DKK
    *   Current Financial Assets At Fair Value Through Profit Or Loss (Held For Trading): 25,197,000,000 DKK. These are often considered cash equivalents or eligible cash if highly liquid. However, standard "Cash and Cash Equivalents" is usually just the cash line. The cash flow statement shows "Cash And Cash Equivalents" at 16,175,000,000 DKK. Let's use the Cash and Cash Equivalents figure from the cash flow section or the Balance Sheet "Cash". The Balance Sheet "Cash" is 16,178,000,000. The difference is negligible. We will deduct unrestricted cash.
    *   Eligible Cash = 16,178,000,000 DKK. (Note: S&P may cap cash deductions or exclude restricted cash, but without restrictions noted, we deduct full cash).

Calculation:
Adjusted_Debt = (63,281 + 8,266 + 9,896.5) - 16,178
Adjusted_Debt = 81,443.5 - 16,178
Adjusted_Debt = 65,265.5 million DKK

*Self-Correction/Refinement on Hybrid Capital:* In many utility contexts, if hybrids are rated equity-like, they might be treated differently. However, the standard baseline formula provided in the prompt explicitly includes `hybrid_debt_portion`. A 50% inclusion is the standard S&P default for hybrids that are not fully equity credited.

*Refinement on Cash:* S&P often deducts "unrestricted cash and short-term investments". The item "Current Financial Assets At Fair Value Through Profit Or Loss Classified As Held For Trading" (25,197) is likely liquid. However, to be conservative and stick to strict "Cash" definitions often used in simple ratio estimations unless "Cash and Equivalents" is defined broadly, we might just use Cash. But looking at Ørsted's liquidity, these trading assets are likely hedging instruments. Hedging collateral is often restricted or netted. The cash flow statement shows large collateral movements. It is safer to use only "Cash" (16,178) as eligible cash, as the trading assets are likely derivatives/hedges which are volatile and may not be "eligible" in the same way as cash for debt reduction in a stress scenario.

Adjusted_Debt = 65,265.5 million DKK.

**Step 3: Estimate Adjusted_EBITDA**

Formula: `Adjusted_EBITDA = EBITDA (reported or reconstructed) + adjustment_leases (if any) + nonrecurring_losses - nonrecurring_gains ± pension_adjustments ± joint_venture_proportional_EBITDA ± other_normalization_adjustments`

*   **Reported EBITDA:**
    *   The facts provide: "Profit Loss From Operating Activities Before Interest Taxes Depreciation And Amortisation Expense" for 2022.
    *   Value: 32,057,000,000 DKK.
    *   This is effectively EBITDA from operations.

*   **Adjustments:**
    *   **Leases:** Under IFRS 16, EBITDA is typically already adjusted for leases (lease expense is replaced by depreciation and interest, so EBITDA adds back depreciation but not interest). The reported "Profit... Before... Depreciation And Amortisation" usually includes the add-back of depreciation on right-of-use assets. Therefore, no further add-back for leases is typically needed for EBITDA itself (the interest portion is below EBITDA). So, `adjustment_leases` = 0.
    *   **Joint Ventures:** The facts show "Share Of Profit Loss Of Associates And Joint Ventures Accounted For Using Equity Method Core Business" (114,000,000 DKK) and "Non Core Business" (40,000,000 DKK).
        *   S&P methodology often adds back the proportionate share of EBITDA from equity-method investees if they are material, or simply uses the dividend received if not. However, the reported EBITDA (Operating Profit before D&A) *excludes* the share of profit from associates (which is usually below the operating profit line or included in "Profit from operating activities" depending on presentation).
        *   Looking at the structure: "Profit Loss From Operating Activities" is 19,774. "Share Of Profit... Associates" is listed separately in the income statement items provided. Usually, "Operating Profit" in IFRS can include or exclude share of associates. Let's check the math.
        *   Revenue (132,277) - Cost of Sales (97,163) - Other External Exp (7,049) - Employee Benefits (5,278) - Other Expense (4,963) + Other Income (14,119) = Gross Operating Profit?
        *   132,277 - 97,163 - 7,049 - 5,278 - 4,963 + 14,119 = 31,943.
        *   The reported "Profit Loss From Operating Activities Before Interest Taxes Depreciation And Amortisation Expense" is 32,057. The difference (114) matches the "Share Of Profit... Core Business" (114). This implies the reported EBITDA *includes* the share of profit from core associates.
        *   S&P prefers to include proportionate EBITDA of JVs. Since the share of profit (net of tax/interest/depreciation at the JV level) is included, and we don't have the JV's gross EBITDA, we typically leave it as is or adjust if we have data. Without JV EBITDA data, we assume the reported figure is a reasonable proxy, or that the impact is minimal. The amount is small (114m vs 32bn).
    *   **Non-recurring items:**
        *   "Gains Losses On Disposals Of Investments": 331,000,000 DKK (Gain). This is likely non-recurring. We should subtract this gain.
        *   "Adjustments For Losses Gains On Disposal Of Noncurrent Assets" in Cash Flow is -10,885,000,000. This is a large negative adjustment to reconcile profit to cash flow, implying a large *gain* was deducted from profit to get to cash flow? Or added?
        *   Let's look at the Income Statement vs Cash Flow.
        *   Cash Flow from Operations starts with Profit/Loss? No, it lists adjustments.
        *   Usually, Gains on disposal are subtracted from EBITDA to get Adjusted EBITDA because they are non-operating/non-recurring.
        *   The item "Gains Losses On Disposals Of Investments" is 331 million.
        *   The item "Adjustments For Losses Gains On Disposal Of Noncurrent Assets" in the cash flow section is -10,885 million. This suggests there was a large gain on disposal of non-current assets (likely wind farms) that reduced the operating cash flow reconciliation. If this gain is included in the "Profit Loss From Operating Activities Before Interest Taxes Depreciation And Amortisation", it should be subtracted.
        *   Let's verify if the 32,057 EBITDA includes these gains. The "Other Income" is 14,119. This is high. It likely contains gains on disposal.
        *   S&P adjusts for non-recurring gains. The disposal of wind farm stakes is part of Ørsted's business model (recycling capital), but large one-off gains are often adjusted or smoothed. However, for a pure ratio calculation based on provided facts, we identify "Gains Losses On Disposals Of Investments" (331) and the larger implied gain from the cash flow adjustment (-10,885 adjustment means a gain of ~10.9bn was added to profit).
        *   Wait, the Cash Flow adjustment "Adjustments For Losses Gains On Disposal Of Noncurrent Assets" is -10,885. In indirect cash flow, you subtract gains. So there was a gain of 10,885 million.
        *   Is this gain included in the EBITDA line? "Profit Loss From Operating Activities Before Interest Taxes Depreciation And Amortisation Expense" is 32,057.
        *   If we remove the non-recurring gain of ~10,885 million, the Adjusted EBITDA would be significantly lower.
        *   However, Ørsted frequently sells stakes in offshore wind farms. S&P may view this as recurring for Ørsted. But strictly speaking, "Gains on disposals" are often adjusted. Let's look for "Non-recurring" guidance. The prompt says "nonrecurring_losses - nonrecurring_gains".
        *   Given the magnitude (10.9bn vs 32bn EBITDA), excluding it changes the ratio drastically. In the utility/renewable sector, asset recycling is common. But standard S&P corporate methodology usually adjusts for gains on asset sales unless they are core trading activities. Ørsted is a generator, not a trader of assets primarily, though it does partner.
        *   Let's check the "Other Income" of 14,119. It likely comprises the gain on disposals and other items.
        *   If we assume the 10,885 gain is non-recurring, we subtract it.
        *   Adjusted EBITDA = 32,057 - 10,885 = 21,172 million.
        *   However, there is also "Change In Derivatives Other Adjustments" of -8,687 in cash flow. This relates to mark-to-market on derivatives. S&P often adjusts for mark-to-market volatility on energy derivatives, adding back unrealized losses or subtracting unrealized gains. The negative adjustment in cash flow (reconciling profit to cash) suggests a gain (or reduction in liability) that didn't generate cash? Or an expense?
        *   Actually, let's look at the "Finance Income" (15,514) and "Finance Costs" (18,050). These are below EBITDA.
        *   The "Change In Derivatives" adjustment in Operating Cash Flow suggests the P&L included non-cash derivative movements. If these are in Finance Income/Cost, they are below EBITDA. If they are in Operating, they are in EBITDA. Ørsted hedges power prices. These hedges might be in operating profit.
        *   Without explicit classification, standard EBITDA from the line "Profit... Before... D&A" is the starting point.
        *   Let's stick to the most robust interpretation: The reported EBITDA is 32,057.
        *   Are there standard S&P adjustments for Ørsted? S&P ratings reports for Ørsted typically adjust EBITDA for mark-to-market on derivatives and sometimes for gains on asset sales if deemed non-core.
        *   However, lacking specific "non-recurring" tags in the facts, and knowing that asset sales are a key part of Ørsted's funding strategy (and thus potentially "core" to their business model in a strategic sense, though volatile), we must decide.
        *   Let's look at the "Gains Losses On Disposals Of Investments" line item: 331 million. This is small. The big number is in the cash flow adjustment.
        *   Let's assume the standard reported EBITDA of 32,057 is the base.
        *   If we deduct the large gain (10,885), EBITDA becomes ~21,172.
        *   If we do not, it is 32,057.
        *   Let's check the 2021 EBITDA: 24,296.
        *   The jump to 32,057 is partly due to high energy prices and partly due to gains.
        *   S&P Global Ratings' actual analysis of Ørsted often uses "FFO" and "Debt/EBITDA" where EBITDA is adjusted for derivatives.
        *   Let's try to calculate a "normalized" EBITDA.
        *   Adjustment for derivatives: The cash flow adjustment "Change In Derivatives Other Adjustments" is -8,687. This implies a non-cash gain (or favorable change) included in profit that reduced cash flow? No, in indirect method, you subtract gains. So a negative adjustment means a gain was included in profit. So there is an ~8.7bn unrealized gain on derivatives included in the P&L (likely in Other Income or Operating Profit).
        *   So, Reported EBITDA (32,057) includes:
            1.  Gain on disposals: ~10,885 (from CF adj)
            2.  Gain on derivatives: ~8,687 (from CF adj)
        *   Total non-cash/non-recurring-ish gains ≈ 19,572.
        *   Normalized EBITDA ≈ 32,057 - 19,572 = 12,485.
        *   This seems very low compared to 2021 (24,296).
        *   Wait, the "Change In Derivatives" might be an *expense* added back?
        *   If the adjustment is negative, it means the item was a gain in the P&L (subtracted to get to cash).
        *   Let's check the sign convention. "Adjustments For...". If I have a gain of 100, I subtract 100 from Net Income to get Cash Flow. So the adjustment is -100.
        *   So yes, these are gains included in the EBITDA.
        *   Are they non-recurring? Derivative MTM is volatile. S&P usually adjusts for MTM. Asset sales are one-off.
        *   If we strip these out, Adjusted EBITDA is ~12.5bn.
        *   Debt is ~65bn. Ratio ~ 5.2.
        *   If we use Reported EBITDA (32bn), Ratio ~ 2.0.
        *   Ørsted's actual credit metrics in 2022 were under pressure. S&P downgraded Ørsted in late 2022/2023. A ratio of 5x is more consistent with a downgrade pressure than 2x.
        *   However, "Adjusted EBITDA" in S&P terms for utilities often *includes* the recurring part of these businesses. But MTM is definitely adjusted.
        *   Let's look at the "Other Income" (14,119).
        *   Let's look at "Finance Income" (15,514).
        *   The derivative gains might be in Finance or Operating.
        *   Given the ambiguity, and the prompt's instruction to use the baseline formula with modifications, the most defensible "Adjusted EBITDA" for a rating agency view strips out volatile MTM and one-off asset sales.
        *   Adjusted EBITDA = Reported EBITDA - Gains on Disposals - Unrealized Derivative Gains.
        *   Adjusted EBITDA = 32,057 - 10,885 - 8,687 = 12,485 million DKK.

    *   **Alternative View:** Does S&P add back lease interest? No, EBITDA is pre-interest.
    *   **Joint Ventures:** We assumed the 114m is included. It's negligible.

    Let's refine the Debt.
    Debt = 63,281 (Borrowings) + 8,266 (Leases) + 9,897 (50% Hybrid) - 16,178 (Cash) = 65,266 million.

    Ratio = 65,266 / 12,485 = 5.22.

    Let's double check if "Change In Derivatives" is definitely a gain.
    In 2021, the adjustment was -2,051.
    In 2022, it was -8,687.
    Ørsted had huge gains on hedging in 2022 due to rising power prices (their hedges were in profit). These are unrealized if not settled. Cash flow adjusts for the non-cash portion.
    S&P adjusts for these unrealized gains/losses.
    So subtracting the gain is correct.

    What about the Gain on Disposals?
    Ørsted sold stakes in Hornsea 2, etc. These are large gains. S&P typically treats these as non-recurring for the purpose of core operating performance, although they are part of the business model. In leverage ratios, S&P often uses "Core EBITDA" which excludes these.
    So subtracting 10,885 is correct.

    So Adjusted EBITDA = 12,485 million DKK.

    Adjusted Debt = 65,266 million DKK.

    Ratio = 65,266 / 12,485 = 5.227...

    Let's check if there are other debt items.
    "Noncurrent Derivative Financial Liabilities" (24,121) and "Current Derivative Financial Liabilities" (33,438). These are liabilities, but they are derivatives, not debt. They are netted against assets in some analyses, but for Debt/EBITDA, we usually stick to interest-bearing debt. The MTM adjustment in EBITDA handles the P&L impact. The balance sheet liability is not "debt" in the covenant sense usually, unless it's a loan. These are trading/hedging derivatives. We do not add them to Debt.

    What about "Eligible Cash"?
    We deducted 16,178.
    If we included the "Current Financial Assets... Held For Trading" (25,197) as eligible cash (since they are liquid hedges/investments), Cash would be 16,178 + 25,197 = 41,375.
    Adjusted Debt = 81,443.5 - 41,375 = 40,068.5.
    Ratio = 40,068.5 / 12,485 = 3.21.

    Which cash definition is standard? S&P "Corporate Methodology" defines eligible cash as "unrestricted cash and short-term investments". The "Held For Trading" assets are short-term investments. However, for a utility with massive derivative positions, these "assets" are likely the positive MTM of derivatives. You cannot use derivative MTM assets to pay down debt easily (they are contingent on market moves and counterparties). Therefore, they are often *not* considered eligible cash for debt reduction in stress cases. Standard cash (bank balances) is the safe bet.
    So we stick with Cash = 16,178.

    Final Calculation:
    Adjusted Debt = 65,265.5 million DKK.
    Adjusted EBITDA = 12,485 million DKK.
    Ratio = 5.2275...

    Rounding to two decimal places: 5.23.

    Let's sanity check. If we *didn't* adjust EBITDA for the gains (i.e., used Reported EBITDA):
    Ratio = 65,265.5 / 32,057 = 2.03.
    Ørsted's leverage was reported around 2-3x in some headlines, but those often use Net Debt / EBITDA where EBITDA is unadjusted for MTM. S&P's *adjusted* ratio is typically higher because they strip out volatile gains. In late 2022, Ørsted's outlook was negative due to cost inflation and project delays, and leverage concerns. A ratio of 5.2x is quite high (BBB range is typically <4x or <4.5x).
    However, if we assume the "Gains on Disposals" are *recurring* for Ørsted (as they constantly sell down projects), we might only adjust for Derivatives.
    EBITDA adj for Derivatives only: 32,057 - 8,687 = 23,370.
    Ratio = 65,265.5 / 23,370 = 2.79.
    This looks more like a typical utility leverage ratio.
    Does S&P consider Ørsted's asset sales recurring? Yes, Ørsted's strategy is "build, sell, recycle". Therefore, gains from asset sales might be considered part of the core business cash flow generation, or at least not "non-recurring" in the strategic sense. However, the *volatility* is high.
    But the derivative MTM is definitely adjusted.
    Let's look at the "Gains Losses On Disposals Of Investments" line (331m) vs the Cash Flow adjustment (10,885m). The 331m is likely just financial investments. The 10,885m is the operational asset sales (wind farms).
    If we treat asset sales as core, we only adjust for Derivatives.
    Adjusted EBITDA = 23,370.
    Adjusted Debt = 65,266.
    Ratio = 2.79.

    Let's check the Hybrid treatment again. If Hybrids are 100% equity (some agencies treat them so if they are highly equity-like), Debt drops by 9,897.
    Debt = 55,369.
    Ratio = 55,369 / 23,370 = 2.37.

    S&P typically counts 50% of hybrids as debt.
    S&P typically adjusts for MTM on derivatives.
    S&P's view on asset sales for Ørsted: In their Oct 2022 report, they noted Ørsted's leverage was elevated.
    Let's assume the standard "Adjusted EBITDA" removes *non-operating* or *volatile* items. MTM is volatile. Asset sales are strategic but lumpy.
    However, the prompt asks to follow the workflow. "nonrecurring_gains". Are asset sales nonrecurring? For a developer/recycler, they are recurring. Derivatives MTM is non-cash and volatile.
    I will proceed with adjusting for Derivatives only, as asset recycling is Ørsted's stated business model.
    
    Recalculating with Derivative Adjustment only:
    Reported EBITDA: 32,057
    Less: Unrealized Derivative Gain: 8,687
    Adjusted EBITDA: 23,370

    Adjusted Debt:
    Borrowings: 63,281
    Leases: 8,266
    50% Hybrid: 9,897
    Less Cash: 16,178
    Total Adj Debt: 65,266

    Ratio: 65,266 / 23,370 = 2.7927...

    Round to 2.79.

    <answer>2.79</answer>