DICA will not get you a bond.
It does not underwrite, it does not create capacity, and no surety has ever said yes because of a methodology. Capacity comes off your balance sheet and your indemnity, and it always will. Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something.
What this page is for: the four things a determination changes that are worth money to you, and the two that will cost you. Both lists are here.
You are probably deciding whether to oppose a jurisdiction that is considering this. Read the objections page first — we publish your counsel’s four strongest arguments and our answers, so you can judge whether they hold.
Objections, with answersFour things, and only one of them is about the size of the number.
You can compute it before you file
The function is published. Run your own project through it and know the requirement in advance, rather than discovering it at the third hearing under political conditions you cannot model.
It is the only mechanism that lowers it
A negotiated figure falls only if the jurisdiction publicly agrees to take less. A determined figure falls when you produce better evidence — automatically, under a formula already in the agreement.
Capital comes back earlier
Release is against stated conditions, not elapsed time. You can model when assurance steps down, and you can accelerate it by satisfying conditions early.
Ambiguity is priced out of the instrument
“Such assurance as the County deems adequate” is the clause your lenders and your surety both hate. A defined, itemised obligation with a stated release trigger is underwritable; an open-ended one is not.
Prove more, bond less — and know in advance which proof pays.
Most of a first-pass requirement is not exposure. It is uncertainty loading — the premium charged because an input rests on your own attestation rather than on independent work. That premium is refundable, and the determination tells you exactly which document to fix first.
| Input | Document to commission | Class now → after | Requirement removed | Indicative cost | Return |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B6 | Independent review of the closure estimate | E4 → E2 | − $11.4M | $60k – $110k | ~120× |
| B3 | Third-party traffic attribution study | E4 → E2 | − $6.2M | $75k – $140k | ~55× |
| B7 | Executed workforce commitment, not a term sheet | E4 → E1 | − $5.8M | legal time | high |
| B4 | Peer review of the curtailment analysis | E4 → E3 | − $2.9M | $40k – $80k | ~45× |
| B2 | Reviewed water balance — reconciled to the power study | E3 → E2 | − $1.6M | $50k – $90k | ~22× |
Note what this does to the negotiation. You are no longer arguing that the number is too high; you are producing the document that makes it lower, on terms the jurisdiction agreed to in advance. That is a materially better position than the one you are in today, and it does not require anybody to back down in public.
Assurance that steps down when risk falls, not when the calendar turns.
Full amount held to the end
The obligation is discharged at completion or on expiry, whichever the agreement happened to say. Capital is tied up through the period in which your actual risk was falling fastest — and the instrument often expires just as the obligation matures.
Steps down against stated conditions
Each step is tied to a condition you control: interconnection energised, closure estimate independently reviewed, recapture period elapsed, restoration accepted. You can model the release curve at financial close and you can pull it forward.
The part your broker will care about most.
A determination separates obligations a surety will actually write from obligations it will not, and says so on the face of the requirement rather than leaving it to be discovered at claim time.
| Class | Nature of the obligation | Instruments that satisfy it | Surety-eligible |
|---|---|---|---|
| Class A | Performance — build it, restore it, close it out | Closure-form surety, performance-form surety, trust, LOC | Yes — this is what surety is for |
| Class B | Monetary — recapture, clawback, indemnity, liquidated sums | Trust, cash, letter of credit, rated guarantee | No — and a bond will not respond |
What this costs you.
The bill
- Peer review. Applicant-funded and jurisdiction-directed. It is a real line item, and it is the same line item that returns multiples of itself when it moves an input from E4 to E2.
- Document discipline. Inputs must cite the document they came from. If your studies contradict each other, that surfaces — which is a cost, and also the point.
- No calendar expiry. You cannot let the obligation lapse quietly. It is discharged on conditions or not at all.
The part that will annoy you
- Liquidity. Forcing Class B obligations out of surety and into cash or LOC hits your working capital in a way a vaguer arrangement did not. That is a genuine cost and we are not going to argue it away.
- Less room. If your position depends on the requirement not being examined closely, this is worse for you, and no framing changes that. We would rather say so here than discover it with you in a hearing room.
What a determination is not.
Not a bond approval
It is not underwriting, not a pre-qualification, and it carries no weight with a surety credit committee. Your balance sheet does that work.
Not a rating or a seal
There is nothing to display, nothing to put in a prospectus, and no certification that your project is sound.
Not an approval recommendation
It says nothing about whether the project should be permitted. It sizes what should be held if it is.
Run it before you file, not after the third hearing.
A pre-determination uses documents you already have. It tells you the number, ranks the inputs by what verification is worth, and shows you the release curve — before any of it is on the record and before anyone has a position to defend.