7 Ways to Read PVSyst Reports for Bank Submission

Table of Contents

What can be reviewed in a PVSyst report submitted to banks

• Check whether the assumptions for energy production are at a level that can be used for lending decisions

• Verify the source and validity of the solar irradiance data

• Check whether the PR (performance ratio) is neither too high nor too low

• Check whether loss items are realistically included

• Examine the relationship with probabilistic assessments such as P50 and P90

• Confirm that equipment specifications match the report conditions

• Check that supporting materials suitable for explaining to the bank are available

For bank submissions, simply presenting PVSyst numbers as-is is not enough

The importance of combining on-site verification with positioning data

Summary

What can be found in the PVSyst bank submission report

In financing and project evaluation for solar power plants, generation forecasts are extremely important. Banks and investors check how much the system will generate, how much revenue from electricity sales it will produce, and whether that revenue can cover loan repayments and operating expenses. Therefore, the power generation simulation reports created with PVSyst are treated not as mere design documents but as supporting evidence to explain project viability.

However, PVSyst reports contain many technical terms and a large number of figures, so they can be difficult for those unfamiliar with them to know where to look. When using them for bank submissions, you should not rely solely on the annual energy production; you need to comprehensively consider multiple factors—irradiance, losses, PR, plant capacity, PCS capacity, azimuth, tilt angle, shading, temperature, wiring losses, curtailment, probabilistic assessment, etc.—to judge the validity of the numbers.

What the bank wants to know is not only how many kWh PVSyst reports. They want to know whether that generation figure is overstated, too conservative, consistent with the equipment specifications, based on assumptions that can be explained to third parties, and whether it is a number that can be used in the financial projections. Therefore, when reading a PVSyst report prepared for submission to a bank, it is more important to interpret the assumptions from which the generation figure was derived than to focus on the generation figure itself.

This article organizes seven perspectives to check when reading PVSyst reports intended for submission to banks. It explains, from a practical perspective, which parts to prioritize when handling PVSyst reports for solar power plant business planning, loan presentations, investment decisions, internal approvals, customer explanations, and similar situations.

1. Check whether the power generation assumptions are at a level usable for lending decisions

The first item checked in a report submitted to the bank is the annual energy generation. In PVSyst, the annual energy output is shown in kWh or MWh. This annual generation is the basis for calculating the power plant’s total revenue from electricity sales.

However, for bank applications you cannot simply assume that higher power generation is better. If the projected generation is too high, the financial plan will look overly optimistic, and if actual performance later falls short it will affect the repayment schedule. Conversely, if the projected generation is too low, the project may appear less viable and lending terms could become more stringent. What matters is that the generation estimate is based on realistic assumptions.

In the PVSyst report, in addition to the energy production section, we also check Specific production and Performance Ratio. Specific production is an indicator that shows how much electricity is generated annually per 1 kW. For example, even with the same annual generation, if the installed capacity is larger, the generation per 1 kW will be lower. For bank submissions, it is important to check not only the plant’s total generation but also whether the generation per unit of capacity is reasonable for the region and design conditions.

When looking at annual power generation, also check the monthly generation. Solar power output varies significantly with the seasons. It is generally higher in summer and lower in winter, but in Hokkaido and other snow-prone regions the winter decline can be more pronounced. In mountainous areas or locations affected by shading, the way shadows appear seasonally also changes. For submission to banks, you need to confirm not only the annual total but also whether the monthly fluctuations are natural.

Also, it is important to know whether the figure refers to first-year generation or a long-term average that accounts for degradation. Solar panels’ output decreases slightly year by year. If a PVSyst report shows only first-year generation, it cannot be used as-is for 20- or 25-year financial projections. To assess cash flows over the loan period, you need a long-term generation plan that separately incorporates the module degradation rate.

For materials submitted to banks, it makes explanations easier if you organize not only a direct transcription of PVSyst’s annual generation into the cash flow statement, but also clarify which year’s generation is being used, how the degradation rate has been applied, and whether output curtailment and downtime rates have been taken into account. This is particularly important for non-recourse loans or structures close to project finance, since assumptions about generation are directly linked to repayment capacity, so it is essential to make the basis for the figures clear.

2. Examine the source and validity of solar radiation data

PVSyst's estimated energy production is heavily dependent on solar irradiance data. No matter how accurate the system design is, if the assumed irradiance deviates significantly from reality, the simulated energy production becomes difficult to trust. Therefore, in reports submitted to banks, you must always verify the sources of the meteorological data used.

In PVSyst, you can use various meteorological data sources such as Meteonorm, SolarGIS, NASA-based data, and measured data. Depending on the type of data, values like global horizontal irradiance, diffuse irradiance, temperature, and wind speed differ. Even for the same power plant, changing the meteorological data used can alter the annual energy yield by a few percent. In the photovoltaic business, a difference of a few percent is significant and directly affects feed-in revenue and investment payback.

For bank submissions, it is necessary not only to state which meteorological data were used but also to assess whether those data appropriately represent the site in question. If there is no measurement station near the power plant, satellite data or interpolated data may be used. In that case, validity should be determined by considering regional characteristics such as topography, elevation, whether the site is coastal or inland, the presence or absence of snow, and the tendency for fog or cloud formation.

Particular attention should be paid to cases where the solar irradiation is too high. If PVSyst’s estimated energy production looks high, it may not be because the equipment performs well but simply because the input irradiation is high. When banks or third-party organizations review a report, they first examine the basis for the solar irradiation data. It is important to confirm that the data do not deviate significantly by comparing them with public statistics for the surrounding area, meteorological databases, and the actual performance of nearby power plants.

Also, in snowy regions, albedo and snow-related losses become important. When snow is present, the amount of time in winter that panels are covered and do not generate increases. On the other hand, there is also an effect of increased irradiance due to reflection from the snow surface. PVSyst allows you to set the albedo, but for reports submitted to banks you should be cautious of reports that strongly reflect only the positive aspects of snow and do not sufficiently account for snow losses.

What’s important when reading solar irradiation data is to look at the assumptions underlying the generation figures. In PVSyst reports, you should check not only the generation results but also the annual solar irradiation, monthly irradiation, and temperature conditions of the input meteorological data. If you’re comparing with other companies’ reports or past projects, even just checking whether the solar irradiation differs significantly for the same region can reveal the main cause of differences in energy output.

For bank submissions, to enhance credibility, it is advisable to organize as supplementary material the name of the meteorological data used, the data acquisition period, the location information, and the reasons for its selection. Rather than simply attaching the report exported from PVSyst, including a one-page document that explains the basis for the solar radiation data will make it easier for the reviewers to understand.

3. Check whether PR is too high or too low

One of the metrics in a PVSyst report that banks tend to focus on is PR. PR stands for Performance Ratio and indicates how much actual output a solar power generation system obtains compared to the energy it could theoretically produce. PR is used as a representative figure expressing the efficiency of a power plant.

A report with a high PR may at first glance look like a good design. However, for bank submissions, a high PR is not necessarily a source of reassurance. If the PR is too high, it may mean that loss items have not been sufficiently included, that temperature losses are underestimated, that wiring losses are set too low, that soiling or snow are not considered, or that shading settings are too lenient.

Conversely, if the PR is too low, it also needs to be checked. If the low PR can be explained by terrain shading, adjacent shading, oversizing, PCS limits, wiring losses, temperature losses, snow, soiling, output control, etc., then there is no problem. However, if only the PR is low and the cause is unknown, there may be errors in the input conditions or inconsistencies in the design.

For bank submissions, it is important not only to provide the PR figure but also to read the breakdown of the losses that make up the PR. By looking at PVSyst's Loss Diagram, you can see where and by how much energy is being lost—from the point solar irradiance reaches the module surface, through array output and PCS output, to the output at the point of interconnection. Whether the PR is high or low is determined by the accumulation of these losses.

For example, if temperature losses are too small, check the ambient temperature data and the thermal loss coefficient settings. If wiring losses are too small, verify that the cable length, cross-sectional area, and voltage conditions match the actual design. If IAM losses are abnormal, check the module's angle-of-incidence characteristics and tilt angle. If there is almost no shading loss, confirm that the surrounding terrain and racking spacing settings are entered correctly.

PR is a useful metric when comparing different projects. However, simply comparing the PRs of projects with different locations or design conditions can be misleading. In cold regions, smaller temperature losses can make the PR appear higher. Even in regions with favorable solar irradiation, clipping losses can occur due to PCS capacity or oversizing in the system design. In snowy regions, how winter losses are treated will affect the PR.

When submitting to a bank, it is important to confirm whether the PR is within a reasonable range and to be able to explain the reasons. If the PR is high, explain why it is high. If the PR is low, explain which losses are affecting it. What matters to banks is not whether the figures are good or bad, but whether there is a convincing explanation for those figures.

4. Verify whether loss terms are realistically accounted for

In PVSyst's report for bank submission, checking the loss items is extremely important. Energy production is calculated starting from solar irradiation and subtracting various losses. Therefore, if the loss settings are lax, the energy production will be high; if the loss settings are strict, the energy production will be low.

Major losses include near shading, far shading, IAM losses, soiling losses, temperature losses, low-irradiance losses, mismatch losses, DC wiring losses, PCS losses, AC wiring losses, transformer losses, auxiliary equipment losses, and losses due to output limitation. For bank submissions, each of these losses is checked individually to confirm that it reflects actual conditions.

Particularly easy to overlook are soiling losses and snow losses. In PVSyst you can set losses from soiling under Soiling Loss, but in some projects this is set to values close to zero. In reality, power generation may be reduced by sand and dust, pollen, bird droppings, dust from agricultural land or construction sites, volcanic ash, snow, and other factors. For submissions to banks, loss settings need to be consistent with cleaning plans and regional characteristics.

Wiring losses are also important. In a solar power plant there are multiple circuits: from the modules to the combiner boxes, from the combiner boxes to the PCS, from the PCS to the transformer and substation equipment, and further to the grid connection point. When setting DC wiring losses and AC wiring losses in PVSyst, you need to reflect the actual cable lengths, cross-sectional areas, voltages, currents, and routing. If the design drawings require long cable runs but PVSyst only uses standard low losses, the energy production may be overestimated.

Temperature losses also have a significant impact. Solar panels experience reduced output as temperature rises. In PVSyst, a thermal loss coefficient is used to calculate module temperature. Temperature conditions vary depending on mounting—roof-mounted, ground-mounted, bifacial, rack height, ventilation, and so on. For bank submissions, it is necessary to verify that the temperature losses correspond to the installation type.

PCS losses and transformer losses cannot be overlooked. The efficiency of the PCS varies with the model and the load factor. Verify that the PCS data registered in PVSyst matches the actual model to be used, that the capacity is correct, and that the MPPT configuration is appropriate. For transformers, check that the no-load losses and load losses are set properly. To what extent you account for nighttime standby power and auxiliary power will also affect the financial projections.

It is also important to know to what extent output curtailment and grid constraints are reflected on the PVSyst side. You must distinguish whether PVSyst’s simulation results indicate the pure generation potential or the amount of energy available for sale after output control. For the financials submitted to banks, the amount of energy that can actually be sold is important. Therefore, it is necessary to clarify whether the output control rate is separately applied to PVSyst’s generation figures or whether output limits are set within PVSyst.

When reviewing loss items, focus on the Loss Diagram. The Loss Diagram is one of the most important pages in a PVSyst report. Because it allows you to visually grasp how much energy is lost at each stage, it is easy to use when explaining the results to banks or for internal reviews.

For submissions to banks, it is more important that losses can be explained than that they are small. A report that appropriately accounts for losses that could realistically occur is credible even if it makes the estimated power generation look slightly low. Conversely, a report in which losses are too small and generation appears high may be questioned during review.

5. Examine the relationship between probabilistic evaluations such as P50 and P90

For power generation assessments submitted to banks, probabilistic evaluations such as P50 and P90 are sometimes used in addition to PVSyst's single-year simulation results. This approach indicates, taking into account the uncertainty in power generation, the probability with which a given level of generation can be achieved.

P50 refers to the level of energy generation that is expected to be exceeded with a 50% probability over the long term. It is used as a concept close to average energy generation. P90 refers to the level of energy generation that is expected to be exceeded with a 90% probability. It is a more conservative estimate of generation and is often emphasized in loan underwriting and when assessing repayment capacity.

The PVSyst report itself displays a standard generation simulation, but for bank submissions you need to clarify whether that value should be treated as equivalent to P50 or whether you should calculate a P90 by separately accounting for uncertainties. If the PVSyst results are used directly in the financial projections, you must be able to explain whether they represent an expected value or a conservative value.

To calculate P90, we consider annual variations in solar irradiation, uncertainties in meteorological data, model errors, variability in equipment performance, uncertainties due to shading and soiling, downtime rates, and uncertainties in output curtailment, among other factors. These are statistically combined to produce a conservative value that subtracts a certain percentage from the expected energy production.

Banks care whether the business plan is based on P50 or P90. A P50-based cash flow may be reasonable on average, but generation can underperform in a bad year. P90-based cash flow is conservative, but it can be useful when assessing the security of loan repayment. In particular, when calculating the DSCR to show repayment capacity, cases using P90 generation are sometimes reviewed.

When reading a PVSyst report prepared for bank submission, first confirm what classification the displayed energy production represents. If you treat PVSyst's annual energy production as equivalent to P50, then P90 must be calculated on a separate sheet or in a separate document. Conversely, if a P90 assessment has already been performed in a third-party report, check the relationship between PVSyst's base case and the P90 value.

What to watch out for here is the case where PVSyst settings are made overly conservative and then a P90 adjustment is layered on top. For example, if you set the solar irradiation lower, assume larger losses, and then apply a large P90 deduction, the resulting energy yield can become excessively conservative. Conservatism is important for bank submissions, but overly stringent assumptions can unnecessarily make the project's viability look worse.

Conversely, if the PVSyst settings are optimistic and the P90 calculation only considers a small uncertainty, it may not adequately reflect the risks. The important thing is to be able to explain how PVSyst’s energy yield, P50, P90, and the financial plan figures are connected.

In documents submitted to banks, organizing and presenting PVSyst generation, generation after degradation, generation after output control, P50, P90, and the generation used to calculate revenue from electricity sales makes the information easier to understand. When responding to reviews, it is important to bridge parts that are difficult to interpret in the PVSyst report alone with supplementary tables.

6. Check whether the equipment specifications match the report conditions

In a PVSyst report submitted to banks, it is essential to verify that the simulation conditions match the actual equipment specifications. No matter how precise the energy production calculations are, if the equipment specifications entered differ from the actual project plans, the report’s credibility will be reduced.

The first things to check are the photovoltaic module’s model and capacity. PVSyst contains many module datasets, but they do not necessarily match exactly the module that will actually be used. Check the model number, rated output, temperature coefficients, degradation characteristics, whether it is bifacial, size, electrical characteristics, and so on. In particular, if a different product with a similar model number has been selected, or if an approximate model is being used because the database does not include the exact module, supplementary explanation is required.

Next, check the PCS model and capacity. PCS capacity has a major impact on a plant’s output limits and clipping losses. If the PCS capacity is small relative to the DC capacity, the PCS will hit its output ceiling during periods of strong solar irradiance, limiting energy production. This is a loss that commonly occurs with oversized designs, but you need to verify that it is correctly reflected in the PVSyst report.

Also, the PCS power factor setting and the handling of output limits are important. If constant power factor operation is required under actual grid interconnection conditions, the active power limit and the handling of reactive power can affect the generated energy. Verify how these are configured in PVSyst and how they are reflected in the amount of electricity sold in the financials. For bank submissions, consistency between the grid interconnection conditions and the simulation conditions is important.

We also check the racking conditions. Azimuth, tilt angle, row spacing, rack height, number of installation tiers, landscape or portrait mounting, terrain gradient, nearby shading settings, and so on affect the energy yield. Especially in mountainous areas or regraded/developed sites, the energy yield can differ between a report entered simply as flat ground and a report that reflects the actual terrain. For bank submissions, we verify that the layout on the drawings matches the PVSyst 3D model and shading settings.

Equipment capacity also needs attention. Verify that the Nominal PV power and Installed power shown in the PVSyst report match the capacities in the project plan, single-line diagrams, module layout drawings, equipment lists, and application documents. Even small capacity differences can affect power generation and feed-in revenue. For plants divided into multiple construction zones, it is especially necessary to check that each zone’s capacity and the integrated total are correct.

For bank submissions, consistency checks are required not only for the PVSyst report but also with design drawings, equipment lists, single-line diagrams, layout drawings, land drawings, grid interconnection documents, contracted capacity, and other related materials. Even if the figures in PVSyst look correct on their own, reviewers will raise questions if they conflict with other documents.

For example, if PVSyst shows a tilt angle of 15 degrees but the design drawings show 10 degrees, an explanation is required as to which is correct. If PVSyst indicates a PCS capacity of 100 kW while the equipment list specifies a 125 kW unit, it is necessary to clarify whether this reflects an output-limiting setting or a difference in model selection. If PVSyst shows almost no shading losses but site photos reveal trees and slopes nearby, the treatment of shading must be checked.

Thus, a PVSyst bank submission report should not be read in isolation but should be cross-checked against other design documents. A report with consistent figures makes it easier to explain the project to banks. Conversely, if there are many discrepancies between documents, the reliability of project management may be questioned even before the accuracy of the energy production.

7. Check whether you have supplementary materials that make it easy to explain to the bank

PVSyst reports are technical documents. Even if solar PV designers and analysts are familiar with them, bank officers may not understand every item in detail. Therefore, for bank submissions, it is important to prepare supplementary materials that are easy to explain in addition to the PVSyst report itself.

What is first required in the supplementary materials is a summary of power generation. Organize PVSyst annual generation, monthly generation, installed capacity, Specific production, PR, and main losses on a single page so the bank can easily grasp the overall picture. Simply submitting the PVSyst report as dozens of pages as-is can make it difficult to understand which numbers are being used in the financial projections.

Next, it is useful to have a list of the assumptions. Organize the weather data used, module model, PCS model, DC capacity, AC capacity, azimuth, tilt angle, wiring losses, soiling losses, temperature losses, output limits, transformer losses, auxiliary losses, and so on. This allows you to verify the key conditions without having to search through the PVSyst report.

Also, materials that show the linkage to the financial plan are important. From PVSyst's generation output, show how electricity sales revenue is calculated by reflecting degradation, output curtailment, downtime rate, and the electricity sales price. Banks are more concerned with the cash flow that will ultimately serve as the repayment source than with the PVSyst generation output itself. Therefore, it is necessary to clarify the calculation process between PVSyst and the business plan.

It can also be effective to present multiple scenarios. Preparing a base case, a conservative case, a low solar irradiance case, an increased output curtailment case, and an increased outage-rate case, among others, makes it easier to explain business risk. For bank submissions, it can be more trustworthy to explain the ability to repay while acknowledging the risks, rather than showing only favorable numbers.

Additionally, documentation showing on-site conditions is helpful. Compile site photographs, layout drawings, topographic maps, shading assessment materials, surveys of surrounding obstructions, information on snow accumulation and drainage, maintenance access routes, etc. PVSyst is a simulation tool, but a power plant is built on actual land; having materials that demonstrate site conditions are reflected in the report will increase the reviewers' confidence.

For submissions to banks, it is particularly important to ensure the origin of the numbers can be traced. The documentation should be organized so that you can explain where the annual generation figures come from, how electricity sales revenue was calculated, why the losses have those values, and which documents the installed capacity corresponds to.

PVSyst reports are detailed, but as they are they can be burdensome for readers. For banks, it is convenient to attach the detailed PVSyst report as supporting documentation and place a summary or explanatory document before it. This way, those who need technical verification can consult the detailed report, while those who want an overview can make judgments based on the summary.

For bank submissions, simply outputting the PVSyst numbers as-is is not sufficient

PVSyst is an advanced energy yield simulation tool, but for bank submissions, simply presenting the figures output by PVSyst is not sufficient. What matters is that those figures are organized in a format that can be used for lending decisions.

Banks do not look only at the technical details of solar power generation. They check whether the amount of electricity generated translates into revenue from electricity sales, whether that revenue can serve as the source of repayments, and whether there is sufficient margin even after deducting operating and repair costs. In other words, a PVSyst report is not only a technical document but also a supporting document for the business plan.

Therefore, when interpreting PVSyst, both technical accuracy and clarity as explanatory documentation are necessary. The annual energy production must be reasonable, the basis for the solar irradiation must be explainable, the loss items must be realistic, it must be consistent with equipment specifications, and the connection to the financial plan must be clear.

Also, when submitting to banks, it is important to avoid a posture of overestimation. In solar power projects, even a slight overstatement of generation can make the finances appear substantially improved. However, if actual performance falls short after financing, the repayment plan will be affected. Therefore, it is important to adopt realistic, explainable assumptions and, where necessary, present a conservative case as well.

On the other hand, care must be taken not to make the figures excessively conservative. If you assume a power generation level that is lower than warranted, a project that would otherwise be viable can appear commercially unviable. For submissions to banks, an appropriate estimate of power generation—neither overly optimistic nor overly pessimistic and supported by evidence—is required.

When reading a PVSyst report for submission to a bank, you need to have both an engineer's perspective and a financial institution's perspective. From the engineer's perspective, verify the input conditions, losses, models, and equipment specifications. From the financial institution's perspective, verify the revenue from electricity sales, repayment capacity, risks, and long-term stability. Bridging these two perspectives is a requirement for a good report for bank submission.

The Importance of Combining On-Site Verification and Positioning Data

In PVSyst reports submitted to banks, on-site information is also important for verifying the validity of the simulation conditions. The power generation of a photovoltaic plant is not determined solely by the layout shown on drawings. Actual terrain, surrounding trees, buildings, slopes, roads, utility poles, the orientation and tilt of the racking, construction errors, and so on affect the power output.

In particular, on-site verification of shading effects is essential. PVSyst allows you to configure 3D shading, but if the terrain and obstacles you enter are not accurate, shading losses will not be calculated correctly. For bank submissions, when shading losses are reported as low, you need to confirm whether there are truly no surrounding obstacles, whether trees might grow in the future, and whether terrain elevation differences have been reflected.

There are situations where positioning using a smartphone and high-precision GNSS can be useful for on-site verification. By using a system that can obtain high-precision location information in combination with an iPhone, such as LRTK, it becomes easier to record on-site the racking/mounting positions, boundaries, survey points, obstacles, slopes, and equipment locations. It does not directly replace a PVSyst report, but it is useful as supporting documentation to confirm whether the simulation assumptions match the on-site conditions.

For example, as supplementary materials for bank submissions, organizing the on-site survey points, layout plans, photographs, obstacle locations, and terrain verification results makes it easier to explain the reliability of the PVSyst input conditions. In particular, for projects where the terrain changes before and after site development, projects with complex racking layouts, projects with concerns about surrounding shading, and projects divided into multiple construction sections, retaining on-site information will be helpful for later explanations.

On-site positioning is also useful for as-built verification after construction. If the azimuth and tilt angles and the racking layout assumed in PVSyst differ significantly from the actual as-built conditions, power generation will be affected. If you organize the on-site location data and photos after construction, you can check the differences between the design conditions and the as-built conditions. This is useful not only when submitting to banks, but also for post-completion explanations and for evaluating power generation after operations begin.

PVSyst is a tool for performing highly accurate desktop simulations. However, solar power plants are facilities that are affected by site-specific conditions. To enhance the reliability of reports submitted to banks, it is important to combine PVSyst's calculation results with information obtained from on-site verification. By producing documentation that shows not only the numbers but also the on-site evidence, you create reports that are more effective for loan reviews and client presentations.

Summary

When reading PVSyst reports prepared for bank submission, it's important not to look only at the annual energy production figure but to check the assumptions from which that number was derived. What banks and investors want to know is not simply whether the energy production is large, but whether that production is realistic and at a level that can be used for long-term repayment planning.

First, confirm whether the power generation assumptions are at a level suitable for lending decisions. Compile the annual generation, monthly generation, Specific production, degradation rate, and handling after output control, and clarify the connection with the financial plan.

Next, verify the source and validity of the solar irradiance data. You should check whether the meteorological data used appropriately represents the target site and whether there are any inconsistencies when compared with actual records from the surrounding area or with official data. If the solar irradiance is too high, the estimated power generation may also be overestimated.

When evaluating PR, don't judge it solely by whether it's high or low; interpret the reasons from the loss components. If PR is too high, it may indicate missing losses; if it's too low, check for problems with the input conditions or the design. It is important to use the Loss Diagram to see at which stage energy is being lost.

For loss items, we check dirt, snow, shading, temperature, wiring, PCS, transformers, auxiliary equipment, output limits, etc. For bank submissions, being realistic and explainable is more important than having low losses.

We will also clarify the relationship with probabilistic assessments such as P50 and P90. We will make clear whether the PVSyst generation estimate is treated as equivalent to P50, whether P90 is calculated separately, and which value is used in the financial plan. For lending decisions, repayment capacity under a conservative case is also important.

Consistency with the equipment specifications is also essential. Verify that the modules, PCS, capacity, azimuth, tilt angle, mounting layout, wiring, transformers, grid interconnection conditions, and so on match the design drawings and equipment lists. Discrepancies between documents become major points of concern during the review.

Finally, prepare supplementary materials that are easy to explain to the bank. In addition to the PVSyst report itself, organizing a summary of power generation, a list of assumptions, a losses summary, the connection to the financial plan, maintenance cases, and on-site verification materials will increase the report’s persuasiveness.

PVSyst's bank submission report is not merely a simulation result but a document demonstrating the reliability of a solar power project. By carefully reviewing the seven items—energy production, solar irradiation, PR, losses, probabilistic assessment, equipment specifications, and supplementary materials—the report becomes easy to present to banks and investors and practical for assessing project viability.