Texas Hedging: Why Did Some Projects Emerge Unharmed While Others Are in Trouble?

Mar 22, 2021

Reading Time : 2 min

A hedge agreement is a contractual device used to lock in a predictable, per-unit price against commodity price fluctuations; however, although a hedge agreement transfers price risk away from the facility owner, volumetric (or production) risk often remains with the facility owner.

There are two basic types of hedges in the Texas market, distinguished by how the hedge is settled, and each type handles production risk quite differently. One type, a fixed-shape hedge, settles pursuant to a set megawatt hour (MWh) schedule that is independent of the actual megawatt hour production from the facility. The second type, a percentage-offtake hedge, settles pursuant to a percent (sometimes 100%) of the megawatt hour production from the facility. Facilities that lost their production capabilities due to the Texas storm generally faired neutrally if they had percentage-offtake hedges because no energy was settled against ultra-high market prices. Conversely, the facilities with a fixed-shape hedge were the ones that generally fared poorly because they were forced to settle (in accordance with their set MWh schedule) against such high market prices without the benefit of receiving these high market prices through their physical production of MWhs.

The following chart demonstrates a typical hedge arrangement (whether it is a fixed-shape or percentage-offtake hedge) (note, for simplicity, this shows a financially settled hedge, but the concept equally applies to a physically settled hedge).

Hedge documents primarily capture the arrangement between the project company and the hedge provider, which is illustrated in the top half of the chart above. Revenue received from the wholesale market, based on the facility’s actual production, is what underpins the ability of the project company to pay the hedge provider through financial settlement (or to schedule and deliver energy at the hub, if this is a physically settled transaction). This wholesale revenue is represented in the bottom half of the chart. In a fixed-shape hedge, the transaction between the project company and hedge provider continues, regardless of whether the project company is receiving revenue from its actual production. In a percentage-offtake hedge, the settlement between hedge provider and project company is dependent upon (and directly correlated to) the amount of production from the facility.

When the hub price reaches $9,000 per MWh and the facility shuts down due to icy conditions, a fixed-shape hedges continues settlement of the hedge arrangement, based on the $9,000-per-MWh price and predetermined settlement quantity; however, a percentage-offtake hedge will not settle because the quantity will be zero. As a result, the project company with a fixed-shape hedge must pay the hedge provider the difference between $9,000 and the strike price when it has no underlying revenue coming in, which is the primary cause of the liquidity crunch many facilities in Texas with hedge offtake agreements are facing (that is, project companies with fixed-shape hedges).

While renewable energy hedges in Texas are, as a whole, lumped together as poor performers in the recent Texas winter storm, the facilities with percentage-offtake agreements emerged (generally) unscathed while the facilities with fixed-shape hedges generally are hurting.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Speaking Energy

August 07, 2024

*Thank you to JaKell Larson, 2024 Akin Summer Associate, for her valuable collaboration on this article.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 31, 2024

Interstate oil, liquid and refined products pipelines regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) will soon be able to raise their transportation rates (provided they were set using FERC’s popular Index rate methodology) in the wake of a significant new decision by the District of Columbia Circuit (the D.C. Circuit) in Liquid Energy Pipeline Association v. FERC (LEPA).

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 29, 2024

On Wednesday, July 24, 2024, the U.S. House of Representative Committee on Energy and Commerce held a Subcommittee on Energy, Climate, and Grid Security hearing to review the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) Fiscal Year 2025 Budget Request. Members of the Subcommittee had the opportunity to hear testimony from all five Commissioners, including FERC Chairman Willie Phillips and Commissioner Mark Christie, as well as the three recently confirmed commissioners, David Rosner, Lindsay See and Judy Chang. In addition to their prepared remarks, the five commissioners answered questions on FERC’s mandate to provide affordable and reliable electricity and natural gas services nationwide, while also ensuring it fulfills its primary mission of maintaining just and reasonable rates.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 29, 2024

On July 9, 2024, the U.S. Court of the Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) erred in ordering refunds for certain bilateral spot market transactions in the Western Energy Coordinating Council (WECC) region that exceeded the $1,000/megawatt-hour (MWh) “soft” price cap for such sales.1 Finding FERC failed to conduct a “Mobile-Sierra public-interest analysis” before “altering” those contracts by ordering refunds, the court vacated FERC’s orders and remanded the case to FERC for further proceedings.2

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 8, 2024

On June 28, 2024, in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., which for 40 years required court deference to reasonable agency interpretations of federal statutes in certain circumstances, even when the reviewing court would read the statute differently. The Court ended “Chevron deference” and held that courts “must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority.” In doing so, the Court upended a longstanding principle of administrative law that is likely to make agency decisions more susceptible to challenge in the courts.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 3, 2024

We are pleased to share a recording of Akin and ICF’s recently presented “Powering Progress: Decoding FERC Order No. 1920” webinar, along with the program materials.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

June 12, 2024

Join projects & energy transition partner Ben Reiter at Infocast's Transmission & Interconnection Summit, where he will moderate the “Dealing with the Impacts of Increased Interconnection Request Requirements and Costs” panel.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

June 4, 2024

Join projects & energy transition partners Hayden Harms and Vanessa Wilson at Infocast's RNG & SAF Capital Markets Summit, where Hayden will moderate the "Investor Perspectives: Private Equity, Infrastructure Funds, & Strategies" panel, and Vanessa will moderate the "Opportunities in Other Biogas/Fuels Markets" panel.

...

Read More

© 2024 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.