Financing strategy for renewable energy

A

B

C

D

F

APA Format, use of references and citation of references

Perfect APA formatting, list of references given in APA format showing extensive research and all reference citations given where required. (10 points)

Minor errors in formatting or references limited to the text and one or two other secondary sources, but all reference citations in place as required (8 or 9 points)

Lack of reference citations, inadequate reference list (limited to text) and/or poor APA formatting. (7 points)

Poor formatting, no reference list, use of opinion in place of facts, no or limited reference citations (6 points)

Completely unreadable (5 points or less)

Discuss financing strategy for the project, including construction-period and long-term financing.

Reasonable discussion of options and selection of one or more options with justification based on financial strategy (20 points)

Disjointed discussion not fully supported by facts or references, but all options covered and options clearly researched (16 to 19 points)

Discussion of only one option or one phase (construction or long-term). (14 or 15 points)

No real discussion of strategy or incorrect analysis not supported by facts, but analysis attempted (12 or 13 points).

Omitted or discussion on a trivial basis (11 points and less depending on discussion quality)

Recommend either asset-based or portfolio financing.

Recommendation made and supported by referenced facts (5 points)

Recommendation made, but not supported (4 or 3 points)

No real recommendation made, but both are discussed. (2 points)

Only one discussed, no recommendation made. (1 points)

No recommendation or discussion. (0 points )

Discuss how the recommendation fits with the current structure of the overall company.

Complete discussion including analysis of parents BS (20 points)

Discussion of key issues, but no analysis of parent BS (16 to 19 points)

Discussion of some key issues, but omission of one or more elements of financing (debt, equity, etc..) (14 or 15 points)

Discussion in general, but no specifics and clearly not researched (12 or 13 points)

Not discussed or merely mentioned without supporting argument or analysis (11 points or less)

Discuss risk reduction techniques

Risk reduction techniques defined and discussed (5 points)

Risk reduction discussed, but no references given or discussion not backed by facts (4 to  points)

Disjointed discussion of risk reduction, but some understanding of the topic is apparent. (3 points)

Risk reduction mentioned, but misunderstood or incorrect examples given (2 or 1 points)

No discussion or limited discussion of risk reduction (0 points)

Total (60 possible)