To estimate the S&P-adjusted FFO-to-debt ratio for Fortum Oyj for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2022, we follow the workflow outlined below.

### Step 1: Identify the Relevant Industry

Fortum Oyj is a Finnish energy company focused on clean energy, with operations in power generation (nuclear, hydro, wind, solar, thermal), district heating and cooling, and energy solutions.
*   **Regulated Utilities:** While Fortum has district heating and some regulated network activities, a significant portion of its business (power generation and trading) is exposed to market prices (merchant risk). The provided text for Regulated Utilities emphasizes "protective rate regulation" and "cost-of-service" models. Fortum's exposure to volatile electricity prices (evidenced by the large derivative positions and "Items Affecting Comparability" related to market values) suggests it does not fit the pure "Regulated Utilities" low-volatility profile.
*   **Unregulated Power And Gas:** This sector description fits Fortum best. It covers companies that "produce, buy, and resell power and gas" and are exposed to "price volatility" and "merchant risks." The text notes that unregulated power companies may have "long-term contractual arrangements" but often face "moderately high risk" due to cyclicality and market exposure. Fortum's significant derivative assets/liabilities and the volatility in its earnings (large losses/gains from discontinued operations and fair value changes) align with the **Unregulated Power And Gas** sector.

Therefore, we apply the **Unregulated Power And Gas** methodology. However, the core calculation formulas for FFO and Adjusted Debt in the prompt's baseline are consistent with S&P's general corporate methodology, which is also the foundation for the Unregulated Power sector (unless specific "debt-like" adjustments for PPAs or securitization are explicitly quantified, which they are not in the provided facts). We will use the baseline formulas provided, adjusting for standard S&P practices where data allows (e.g., using cash interest and cash taxes).

### Step 2: Estimate Adjusted_EBITDA

The baseline formula is:
`Adjusted_EBITDA = EBITDA (reported or reconstructed) + adjustment_leases + nonrecurring_losses - nonrecurring_gains ± pension_adjustments ± joint_venture_proportional_EBITDA ± other_normalization_adjustments`

From the facts:
*   **Operating Profit Before Depreciations Ebitda** (Reported EBITDA): 1,842,000,000 EUR.
*   **Comparable Ebitda**: 2,436,000,000 EUR.

S&P typically starts with Reported EBITDA and adds back non-recurring items. The difference between Reported EBITDA (1,842m) and Comparable EBITDA (2,436m) is 594m. The facts list "Items Affecting Comparability" as -593,000,000 EUR. This suggests that the "Comparable" metric adds back these items.
*   Items Affecting Comparability (2022): -593,000,000 EUR.
*   This negative impact reduced the operating profit. To get to a normalized EBITDA, we should add back these non-recurring/structural adjustments if they are considered one-time or non-core by S&P standards. However, S&P is conservative. Let's look at the components.
*   The "Items Affecting Comparability" often include impairments, restructuring, and mark-to-market adjustments on derivatives. In the Unregulated Power sector, mark-to-market on hedging derivatives is often considered part of core operations if it relates to physical production, but S&P may adjust for extreme volatility or non-cash items if they distort the view of cash generation.
*   However, a simpler and more robust approach for S&P FFO calculation is often: `FFO = Net Income + Depreciation & Amortization + Deferred Taxes + Other Non-Cash Items`. Or starting from EBITDA: `FFO = EBITDA - Cash Interest - Cash Taxes + Changes in Working Capital (sometimes excluded in simple FFO defs, but S&P FFO is usually accrual-based net income + D&A)`.
*   Let's stick to the prompt's specific instruction: `Adjusted_EBITDA = EBITDA + adjustments`.
*   Reported EBITDA: 1,842,000,000 EUR.
*   Adjustments: The "Items Affecting Comparability" of -593m includes impairments and other items. S&P usually adds back impairments (non-cash) and restructuring costs. It may not add back all market-value adjustments. Without a detailed breakdown, using the **Comparable EBITDA** provided by management is a common proxy for "Adjusted EBITDA" in the absence of specific S&P recalculations, *but* S&P often strips out gains/losses on derivatives if they are unrealized and volatile.
*   Let's look at the Cash Flow statement to derive a more cash-oriented FFO directly, or stick to the EBITDA bridge.
*   Let's use the Reported EBITDA of 1,842,000,000 EUR as the base.
*   Are there lease adjustments? The facts do not explicitly list "Lease Liabilities" separate from other financial liabilities, but "Repayments Of Non Current Borrowings And Repayments Of Lease Liabilities" suggests leases exist. However, without a specific lease liability figure, we cannot adjust debt or EBITDA for leases precisely. We will assume reported EBITDA includes lease EBITDA (as per IFRS 16, which Fortum uses, EBITDA is post-lease depreciation but pre-lease interest? No, IFRS 16 EBITDA is typically higher than old operating lease rent. S&P adds back rent for operating leases, but for finance leases/IFRS 16, EBITDA is already adjusted. We will assume Reported EBITDA is the starting point).
*   Non-recurring items: The -593m "Items Affecting Comparability" is a significant drag. If we assume these are non-recurring/adjustable, Adjusted EBITDA would be closer to 2,435m. However, S&P is skeptical of "comparable" metrics that add back market volatility. Let's look at the "Cash Flows From Used In Operations Before Changes In Working Capital": 2,322,000,000 EUR. This is a strong proxy for cash generation from operations before working capital swings.
*   Let's calculate FFO using the standard S&P definition: `FFO = Net Income from Continuing Operations + Depreciation & Amortization + Deferred Taxes + Other Non-Cash Items`.
    *   Profit Loss From Continuing Operations: 1,011,000,000 EUR.
    *   Depreciation And Amortisation Expense: 566,000,000 EUR.
    *   Income Tax Expense Continuing Operations: -556,000,000 EUR (This is a benefit, i.e., negative expense).
    *   Deferred Taxes: We need the deferred tax portion. The total tax expense is -556m. Cash taxes paid were 167m (refund/inflow? "Income Taxes Paid Refund Classified As Operating Activities": 167,000,000 EUR. Positive value in cash flow usually means inflow/refund). If tax expense is -556m (benefit) and cash tax is +167m (inflow), the deferred tax is the difference.
    *   Actually, let's use the provided formula: `FFO = Adjusted_EBITDA - cash_interest - cash_taxes`.

    Let's refine **Adjusted_EBITDA**.
    Reported EBITDA: 1,842,000,000 EUR.
    S&P adjustments often include adding back non-cash impairments. "Impairment Loss Reversal... Recognised In Profit Or Loss": 905,000,000 EUR. This is a *reversal* (gain), so it increased profit. Wait, the item is "Impairment Loss Reversal...". A reversal is a gain. It is included in the "Items Affecting Comparability" or Operating Profit?
    The "Items Affecting Comparability" is -593m.
    Operating Profit is 1,277m. Comparable Operating Profit is 1,871m. Difference is 594m.
    The impairment reversal of 905m is a positive item. If it were added back, it would increase EBITDA. But it's already in the Operating Profit.
    Let's look at the composition of "Items Affecting Comparability" (-593m).
    If Comparable Op Profit (1,871) - Items (-593) = Reported Op Profit (1,278 ~ 1,277).
    So the "Items" reduced the profit.
    Does Adjusted EBITDA include these items? S&P generally adds back *losses* and subtracts *gains* that are non-recurring.
    If the -593m is a net loss, we add it back.
    Adjusted EBITDA ≈ Reported EBITDA (1,842) + Add-backs.
    The difference between Reported EBITDA (1,842) and Comparable EBITDA (2,436) is 594.
    So Comparable EBITDA = Reported EBITDA + 594.
    S&P might not accept all "Comparable" adjustments. However, without specific details on which parts are non-recurring vs. structural, and given the volatility of the power sector, S&P often focuses on **Cash FFO**.
    
    Let's try calculating FFO directly from Cash Flow from Operations (CFO), which is often a good proxy for FFO if we adjust for working capital changes that are temporary.
    S&P FFO is an accrual concept.
    FFO = Net Income (Continuing) + D&A + Deferred Tax.
    Net Income Continuing: 1,011,000,000.
    D&A: 566,000,000.
    Deferred Tax: Total Tax Expense is -556,000,000. Cash Tax Paid is 167,000,000 (inflow).
    Tax Expense = Current Tax + Deferred Tax.
    -556 = Current + Deferred.
    Cash Tax Paid (inflow) 167. This implies Current Tax was a refund or negative liability increase.
    This is complex. Let's use the `FFO = Adjusted_EBITDA - cash_interest - cash_taxes` formula as requested.

    **Estimating Adjusted_EBITDA:**
    We will use the **Comparable EBITDA** of 2,436,000,000 EUR as the best estimate for Adjusted EBITDA, assuming the "Items Affecting Comparability" are treated as non-recurring/adjustable by S&P (common for impairments, restructuring, and specific market anomalies in utility reporting). If we were conservative and used Reported EBITDA, it would be 1,842,000,000. However, the impairment *reversal* of 905m is a gain. If this is included in the "Items", it might be subtracted.
    Let's look closer. "Impairment Loss Reversal...": 905m. "Capital Gains...": 785m. "Other Adjustments...": 80m.
    Sum of positive adjustments in "Items"?
    The "Items Affecting Comparability" is -593m.
    This implies the net impact of all special items was a loss of 593m.
    Therefore, adding back 593m to Reported EBITDA gives Comparable EBITDA.
    S&P typically adds back impairments (losses) and subtracts reversals (gains).
    If the -593m net includes a 905m gain (reversal), then there must be larger losses elsewhere (e.g., derivative marks, restructuring).
    Given the complexity and the "Unregulated Power" volatility, S&P might prefer a normalized EBITDA that excludes extreme mark-to-market volatility.
    However, a standard S&P calculation for a utility often accepts the company's "Adjusted" or "Comparable" EBITDA if it excludes truly one-time items.
    Let's assume **Adjusted_EBITDA = 2,436,000,000 EUR**.

    **Cash Interest:**
    "Interest Paid Classified As Operating Activities": 201,000,000 EUR.
    Note: S&P uses cash interest paid.
    
    **Cash Taxes:**
    "Income Taxes Paid Refund Classified As Operating Activities": 167,000,000 EUR.
    The label says "Paid Refund". In cash flow statements, a positive number in operating activities usually denotes an inflow (refund). A negative number denotes an outflow (payment).
    If it is a refund of 167m, then Cash Tax is -167,000,000 EUR (a benefit to cash flow).
    Let's verify with the Tax Expense.
    Tax Expense: -556,000,000 (Benefit).
    If Cash Tax is a refund of 167m, the deferred tax component must be a larger benefit (expense reduction).
    Formula: `FFO = Adjusted_EBITDA - cash_interest - cash_taxes`
    If cash_taxes is a refund (inflow), it *adds* to FFO.
    So, `FFO = 2,436,000,000 - 201,000,000 - (-167,000,000)`
    `FFO = 2,436,000,000 - 201,000,000 + 167,000,000`
    `FFO = 2,402,000,000 EUR`.

    *Alternative Check*: If "167,000,000" represents a net outflow (payment), the label "Paid Refund" is ambiguous. However, looking at 2021: Tax Expense 325m, Cash Flow 279m. Positive 279m in 2021 likely means payment? Or refund?
    In 2021, Tax Expense was positive (325m cost). Cash Flow was 279m. If 279m was a payment, it would be an outflow (negative in indirect method? Or presented as absolute?).
    Standard IFRS Cash Flow: "Income taxes paid" is usually an outflow. If presented as a positive number in a list of "Cash Flows From Used In...", it might be an absolute value of outflow.
    Let's check the context: "Cash Flows From Used In Operating Activities Continuing Operations" is 2,104,000,000 (Positive? No, "From Used In" usually implies the net result. If it's positive, it's an inflow).
    Fortum had a huge loss in Discontinued Ops, but Continuing Ops Profit was 1,011m.
    CFO from Continuing Ops: 2,104m.
    Components:
    Cash Flows Before Working Cap: 2,322m.
    Working Cap Change: 219m.
    2,322 + 219 = 2,541? No.
    Let's look at the signs.
    Usually, `CFO = Net Income + D&A - Increase in WC`.
    If "Increase Decrease In Working Capital" is 219m, and it *added* to the 2,322 to get 2,104? No, 2322 + 219 = 2541. 2322 - 219 = 2103. Close to 2104.
    So an "Increase" in WC (use of cash) would be subtracted.
    If the line item is "Increase Decrease...", and the result is lower, it was likely a use of cash (outflow).
    
    Now for Taxes:
    If Tax Expense is -556m (Benefit), and we have a Cash Flow item of 167m.
    If 167m is an inflow (refund), it adds to CFO.
    If 167m is an outflow (payment), it subtracts from CFO.
    Given the Tax Benefit of 556m, it is highly likely the company received a refund or had a significant deferred tax asset recognition. A cash *payment* of 167m while having a tax *benefit* of 556m is possible (paying prior years, recognizing current deferred benefit), but a refund is also possible.
    However, looking at the 2021 data: Tax Expense 325m. Cash Flow 279m.
    If 279m was a payment, it's close to the expense.
    In 2022, Expense is -556m.
    If the 167m is a refund, it makes sense (cash inflow).
    Let's assume **Cash Tax = -167,000,000 EUR** (i.e., a cash inflow/refund).
    
    So, **FFO = 2,436m - 201m - (-167m) = 2,402m EUR**.

    *Conservative Check*: What if we use Reported EBITDA?
    FFO = 1,842 - 201 + 167 = 1,808m.
    S&P often makes adjustments to EBITDA. The "Items Affecting Comparability" of -593m includes "Impairment Loss Reversal" of 905m (Gain) and "Capital Gains" of 785m (Gain).
    Wait. If there are gains of 905 + 785 = 1,690m, and the net "Items" is -593m, there must be huge losses (approx 2,283m) elsewhere in the items (likely derivative mark-to-market losses or restructuring).
    S&P typically *subtracts* non-recurring gains and *adds* non-recurring losses.
    If the -593m is the net, adding it back (to get to Comparable) assumes the net impact is non-recurring.
    However, derivative marks in Unregulated Power are often considered *recurring* operational volatility by S&P, unless they are purely financial speculation. Fortum hedges its production.
    If S&P considers the derivative volatility as part of core risk, they might stick closer to Reported EBITDA or a partially adjusted figure.
    However, the prompt asks to estimate based on the facts. The "Comparable EBITDA" is a management-defined adjusted metric. Without specific S&P adjustments provided, using the Reported EBITDA is the safest "baseline" unless we know the items are non-recurring.
    BUT, the prompt says "Estimate the Adjusted_EBITDA... modifying it as required by the industry methodology".
    In Unregulated Power, S&P acknowledges volatility.
    Let's look at the "Cash Flows From Used In Operations Before Changes In Working Capital": 2,322m.
    This figure (2,322m) is very close to the Comparable EBITDA (2,436m) minus some cash items?
    EBITDA (2,436) - Cash Interest (201) + Cash Tax Refund (167) = 2,402.
    The "Cash Flow Before WC" is 2,322.
    Difference: 80m.
    This 80m could be other non-cash items or differences in definition (e.g., dividends received, interest received).
    Interest Received: 84m. Dividends Received: 18m.
    FFO usually includes interest and dividends received.
    If we take CFO before WC (2,322) and add/subtract working capital?
    S&P FFO is accrual-based.
    Let's stick to the formula: `FFO = Adjusted_EBITDA - Cash Interest - Cash Taxes`.
    If we use **Adjusted_EBITDA = 2,436,000,000** (Management's normalized view, which S&P often benchmarks against):
    FFO = 2,436 - 201 - (-167) = 2,402,000,000 EUR.

### Step 3: Estimate Adjusted_Debt

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

**Reported Debt:**
We need to sum interest-bearing debt.
From the Balance Sheet facts:
*   Other Noncurrent Financial Liabilities: 3,658,000,000 EUR (2023-01-01, which is end of 2022).
*   Other Current Financial Liabilities: 4,127,000,000 EUR.
*   Current Derivative Financial Liabilities: 3,973,000,000 EUR. (Derivatives are generally *not* included in debt for S&P ratios unless they are debt-like hedges, but usually excluded from Gross Debt. S&P focuses on borrowings).
*   Noncurrent Derivative Financial Liabilities: 756,000,000 EUR. (Exclude).
*   Margin Liabilities: 352,000,000 EUR. (Exclude, typically trading related).
*   Lease Liabilities: Not explicitly broken out. "Repayments Of ... Lease Liabilities" indicates they exist. In IFRS, lease liabilities are in "Other Financial Liabilities" or separate. Without a specific line item, we might have to estimate or assume they are included in "Other Financial Liabilities". S&P adds back operating leases, but under IFRS 16, they are already debt. We will assume "Other Financial Liabilities" contains the lease debt and borrowings.
*   Let's check "Other Noncurrent Financial Liabilities" and "Other Current Financial Liabilities". These likely contain the bulk of the borrowings.
*   Total Borrowings ≈ 3,658 + 4,127 = 7,785,000,000 EUR.
*   Are there other debt items?
*   "Nuclear Non Current Provisions": 966m. S&P may treat nuclear provisions as debt-like if they are mandatory and funded, but often they are treated as provisions. Given the "Share In State Nuclear Waste Management Fund" asset (966m) matches the liability, it's a funded provision. S&P might net this or treat it as neutral. We will exclude it from Debt for now, or net it.
*   "Other Longterm Provisions": 118m. Exclude.

**Eligible Cash:**
*   Liquid Funds: 3,919,000,000 EUR.
*   S&P allows netting of cash against debt if it is unrestricted and available.
*   "Margin Receivables" (2,607m) and "Current Derivative Financial Assets" (1,486m) are related to trading/hedging. S&P typically does *not* net these against debt unless they are part of a specific netting arrangement for debt service. We will only net "Liquid Funds".
*   Eligible Cash = 3,919,000,000 EUR.

**Adjusted Debt Calculation:**
Gross Debt (Financial Liabilities) = 3,658m (Non-current) + 4,127m (Current) = 7,785,000,000 EUR.
Less Eligible Cash = 3,919,000,000 EUR.
Net Debt = 7,785 - 3,919 = 3,866,000,000 EUR.

*Note on Derivatives:* The derivative liabilities (3,973 + 756 = 4,729m) are huge. However, they are offset by derivative assets (1,486 + 343 = 1,829m). Net derivative liability is ~2,900m. S&P generally excludes derivatives from Debt, viewing them as operational/hedging instruments, unless they are synthetic debt. We will exclude them from Debt.

*Note on Leases:* If "Other Financial Liabilities" includes leases, they are in the 7,785m. If not, we are underestimating debt. Given the lack of specific lease liability data, we proceed with the reported financial liabilities.

**Adjusted_Debt = 3,866,000,000 EUR.**

### Step 4: Calculate FFO / Adjusted_Debt

FFO = 2,402,000,000 EUR.
Adjusted_Debt = 3,866,000,000 EUR.

Ratio = 2,402 / 3,866 ≈ 0.6213.

Let's double check the FFO calculation with a more conservative EBITDA.
If we used Reported EBITDA (1,842m):
FFO = 1,842 - 201 + 167 = 1,808m.
Ratio = 1,808 / 3,866 ≈ 0.4677.

Which EBITDA is more appropriate for S&P?
S&P "Unregulated Power" methodology acknowledges volatility. It often uses "Normalized EBITDA". The "Items Affecting Comparability" of -593m is significant.
The items include:
- Impairment Reversal (Gain) 905m.
- Capital Gains (Gain) 785m.
- Other Adjustments 80m.
- Total Gains ~ 1,770m.
- Net Items = -593m.
- Implied Losses = 1,770 + 593 = 2,363m.
These losses are likely from derivative revaluations or restructuring.
If the losses are from derivative revaluations (mark-to-market), S&P might *not* add them back if they reflect economic reality of the hedging program, OR they might add them back if they are unrealized and reverse over time.
However, the "Comparable EBITDA" provided by Fortum is 2,436m. This is a standard starting point for analyst adjustments.
Also, consider the "Cash Flow From Operations Before Working Capital" of 2,322m. This is a cash-based metric that inherently adjusts for non-cash items like impairments and unrealized derivatives (to the extent they don't affect cash).
FFO is accrual-based, but closely tracks operating cash flow.
If we use the CFO before WC (2,322m) as a proxy for FFO (adjusting for interest/tax):
CFO Before WC = 2,322m.
This figure is *after* interest and tax?
No, "Cash Flows From Used In Operations Before Changes In Working Capital" is typically EBITDA - Cash Interest - Cash Taxes + Other Cash Items.
Let's check:
EBITDA (Comparable) 2,436.
Cash Interest 201.
Cash Tax (Refund) -167.
2,436 - 201 + 167 = 2,402.
The CFO Before WC is 2,322.
Difference is 80m.
This 80m is likely "Other Adjustments For Noncash Items" (153m) or similar.
Given that FFO is an accrual metric, using the Accrual-based Adjusted EBITDA (2,436) is more consistent with the definition `FFO = Adjusted EBITDA - Cash Interest - Cash Taxes`.
The result 2,402m is robust.

Let's refine the Debt.
Are there any other debt-like items?
"Nuclear Non Current Provisions" 966m.
S&P often treats nuclear waste provisions as debt-like because they are mandatory, long-term, and akin to asset retirement obligations. However, Fortum has a "Share In State Nuclear Waste Management Fund" of 966m.
If we treat the Provision as Debt (+966) and the Fund as Cash/Asset (-966), the net effect is zero.
If we treat the Fund as an ineligible asset (restricted), we don't net it against cash.
If we treat the Provision as Debt, Debt increases by 966m.
Adjusted Debt = 3,866 + 966 = 4,832m.
Ratio = 2,402 / 4,832 = 0.4971.

However, standard S&P practice for utilities with funded nuclear provisions is often to net them or exclude both if the fund is dedicated. The prompt asks for "Adjusted_Debt = reported_debt ... - eligible_cash". It doesn't explicitly say to add provisions. "Other debt-like items" is the catch-all.
Given the asset matches the liability exactly, it is a pass-through. Netting is appropriate.
So we stick with Net Debt of 3,866m.

One more check on Cash.
"Liquid Funds" 3,919m.
Is all of it eligible? Usually yes, unless restricted.
Fortum had significant margin calls (Margin Receivables 2,607m, Margin Liabilities 352m). This ties up liquidity.
However, "Liquid Funds" are cash. Margin Receivables are receivables.
S&P might discount cash if it's needed for margin collateral. But without explicit restriction data, we assume Liquid Funds are eligible.

Final Calculation:
FFO = 2,402,000,000
Adj Debt = 3,866,000,000
Ratio = 0.62131...

Rounding to four decimal places: 0.6213.

<answer>0.6213</answer>