Template:M summ EFET Allowance Annex 7.4: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Replaced content with "{{Emissions force majeure termination summ|efeta}}" Tag: Replaced |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tag: Manual revert |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Emissions force majeure termination summ| | {{Emissions force majeure termination summ|efetaprov}} | ||
Latest revision as of 14:34, 21 November 2023
It is interesting to compare, across all three of the emissions trading documentation suites, the differences and similarities when it comes to resolving an unquenchable Force Majeure.
- Notification: All are the same: either party can notify a Force Majeure. If the affected party is the one who calls it — but, curiously, not if it isn’t, which sets up some odd incentives, but hey — it must use reasonable endeavours to overcome a situation that is, by definition, beyond its control.
- Longstop date: all have variations of a longstop of no later than 9 Delivery Business Days after the scheduled Delivery Date, or earlier should a Reconciliation Deadline intervene. ISDA and EFET also throw in an End of Phase Reconciliation Deadline. Which is nice.
- Consequences of hitting the longstop: All of the agreements opt for the “then I woke up and it was all a dream” method of closeout — Force Majeure Termination Payment, at least as an option. They allow the alternative option for a Payment on Termination: ISDA goes for an Early Termination Date as if an Illegality Termination Event, with no Waiting Period, had occurred. EFET and IETA both try to reconstruct something like the termination methodology of a 1992 ISDA, descending into all that ugliness of “Market Quotation” and “Loss”.