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

March 4, 2025

Join projects & energy transition partner Shariff Barakat at Infocast’s Solar & Wind, where he will moderate the “Tax Equity Market Dynamics” panel.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

February 13, 2025

Oil & gas companies continue to identify and capitalize on opportunities related to the deployment of new energy technologies, with their approaches broadly maturing and coalescing around maximizing synergies, leveraging available subsidies and responding to regulatory drivers.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

February 11, 2025

On January 30, 2025, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) approved a Stipulation and Consent Agreement (Agreement) between the Office of Enforcement (OE) and Stronghold Digital Mining Inc. (Stronghold) resolving an investigation into whether Stronghold had violated the PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM) tariff and Commission regulations by limiting the quantity of energy made available to the market to serve a co-located Bitcoin mining operation.1 This order appears to be the first instance of a public enforcement action involving co-located load and generation and comes at a time when both FERC and market operators2 are scrutinizing the treatment of co-located load due to the rapid increase in demand associated with data center development.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

February 5, 2025

2024 was about post-consolidation deal flow and a steady uptick in activity across the oil & gas market. This year, mergers & acquisitions (M&A) activity looks set to take on a different tone as major consolidation plays bed down.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

January 30, 2025

The oil & gas industry is experiencing a capital resurgence, driven by stabilizing interest rates and renewed attention from institutional investors. Private equity is leading the charge with private credit filling the void in traditional energy finance and hybrid capital instruments gaining in popularity. Family offices are also playing a crucial role, providing long-term, flexible investments.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

January 23, 2025

Under a second Trump presidency, the U.S. is expected to consider reversal of many of the Biden administration’s climate and environmental policies, in addition to a markedly different approach to trade policy and oil & gas regulation. This includes expanding oil & gas development on public lands and offshore, lifting the pause on liquified natural gas (LNG) exports to non-Free Trade Agreement countries and repealing the methane fee.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

January 15, 2025

We are pleased to share a recording of Akin’s recently presented webinar, “Drilling Down: What Oil & Gas Companies Can Expect from Federal Agencies During Trump’s Second Administration.”

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

January 9, 2025

On January 6, 2025, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued a Final Rule to amend its regulations governing the maximum civil monetary penalties assessable for violations of statutes, rules and orders within FERC’s jurisdiction. The Final Rule is a result of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, which requires each federal agency to issue an annual inflation adjustment by January 15 for each civil monetary penalty provided by law within the agency’s jurisdiction. The adjustments in the Final Rule represent an increase of approximately 2.6% for each covered maximum penalty. FERC’s adjusted maximum penalty amounts, which will apply at the time of assessment of a civil penalty regardless of the date on which the violation occurred, are set forth here and will become effective upon publication in the Federal Register.

...

Read More

© 2025 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.