You mention PPA (Power Purchase Agreement) for the wind generation, but if a wind facility is able to sign such an agreement, it seems that financing becomes simple and the need for the novel features you mentioned (contingent facility and equity and cash sweeps) are not necessary.

Here in the US, the PPAs for wind are getting harder to obtain because of the second point you mentioned - the management of the intermittancy - which has become a burden for the local utility. I took that the structure you described took these burdens and mitigated them through the cash sweep mechanisms and guarantees...did they not?
Does the Vestas guarantee only cover low availability caused by mechanical failures rather than lack of wind?  If so, does the contingent equity cover the risk of intermittancy and the utility's other generation steps in?  do the cash sweep mechanisms true up in times of no wind? or is this site lucky to have a high capacity factor?
Very interesting stuff, would love to learn more and figure how to apply and solve the intermittant issue over the pond here in the US.

This is offshore. These features are there to cover for uncertainty in construction schedule and then on operating budgets - for which there is little track record.

Intermittancy has to be managed outside the project; it's too much of a burden for a single project.

There is never any coverage for lack of wind. We rely on statistical analysis and cover ratios that protect us even if you have a low wind year - that's true onshore as well.