Excess Emissions Penalty - IETA Provision

IETA Emissions Trading Master Agreement A Jolly Contrarian owner’s manual™ Excess Emissions Penalty overview in a Nutshell™ The JC’s Nutshell™ summary of this term has moved uptown to the subscription-only ninja tier. For the cost of ½ a weekly 🍺 you can get it here. Sign up at Substack. You can even ask questions! Ask about it here. Excess Emissions Penalty overview in all its glory “Excess Emissions Penalty” has the meaning given to it in the Directive. “EEP Amount” means an amount (expressed as an amount per Allowance) that the Receiving Party determines, acting in good faith and using commercially reasonable procedures, to be its total losses and costs which result from the Delivering Party’s failure to deliver the Shortfall to the extent that those losses and costs are not reflected elsewhere in the definition of Receiving Party’s Replacement Cost and to the extent that they relate to: (a) any Excess Emissions Penalty which the Receiving Party must pay to a Relevant Authority in accordance with the terms of the Scheme; or (b) if this sub-paragraph (b) is specified in Schedule 2 (Elections) as applying, any amount which the Receiving Party must pay to a third party in respect of any such penalty payable to any other party (including a Relevant Authority) by that third party as a result of the Delivering Party’s failure to deliver the Shortfall. “EEP Status” means whether or not the Parties have elected in Schedule 2 (‘‘Elections’’) (or the Confirmation for the relevant Transaction) that Excess Emissions Penalty applies to the relevant Period Traded Allowances. 12.1(c) Subject to Clause 12.1(d) (Failure to Transfer), if as a result of the Delivering Party’s failure to make a Transfer (in whole or in part) the Receiving Party becomes liable to pay any EEP Amount, then the Receiving Party shall provide to the Delivering Party, upon its reasonable request, evidence to the reasonable satisfaction of the Delivering Party: (i) that the Receiving Party has incurred an EEP Amount consequent on the Delivering Party’s failure to make a Transfer (in whole or in part); (ii) the extent to which the requirement for the Receiving Party to pay any EEP Amount results from the Delivering Party’s failure to make such Transfer; and (iii) that the Receiving Party could not have used Allowances to which it had legal and beneficial interest in any Holding Account(s) in any Registry in order to avoid or reduce its liability to pay any EEP Amount which it claims from the Delivering Party as part of the Receiving Party’s Replacement Cost. edit Comparison See our natty emissions comparison table between the IETA, EFET and ISDA versions of emissions trading docs Resources and Navigation Emissions trading documentation ISDA: EU Anatomy • EU Wikitext • EU Nutshell (premium) • UK Anatomy • UK Wikitext (to be merged into EU Anatomy) IETA: IETA Master Agreement • IETA Wikitext • IETA Nutshell (premium) EFET: EFET Allowances Appendix • EFET Allowances Wikitext • EFET Nutshell (premium) Index: Click ᐅ to expand: ISDA Emissions TOC EUA Annex - Premium Emissions Pro tip: for tons of information about EU ETS and EU financial services regulation see Michał Głowacki’s magnificent emissions-euets.com website. Premium version of this page

Overview

edit

The definition of Excess Emissions Penalty is more or less the same in all three emissions trading documentation regimes. Compare:
ISDA: Excess Emissions Penalty
IETA: Excess Emissions Penalty
EFET: Excess Emissions Penalty
Seeing as it is quite a fundamental part of the economic risk of Allowance trading, we should not be surprised to find that all three versions have a concept of EEP or Excess Emissions Penalty, nor that, per their Myers-Briggs personality types, ISDA has gone for quite unnecessary optionality, IETA has sort of followed suit, and EFET has gone for none, but laborious drafting of alternatives anyway. Hey ho.

Summary

edit

ISDA defines itself up the wazoo, with EEP, EEP Equivalent, EEP Amount, EEP Non-delivery, EEP Payment, EEP Risk Period and Indemnifiable EEP — of course they did, didn’t they — whereas IETA is a relatively spartan Excess Emissions Penalty (and no EEP Equivalent — it just defines it in EEA Amount as “if this sub-paragraph (b) is specified in Schedule 2 (Elections) as applying”) and EEP Status, while EFET just has EEP and EEP Equivalent, but nothing else.

EEP Amount is pretty much the same between ISDA and IETA. EFET goes off on one.

What is is all about

Well, the basic point of an Emissions Trading Scheme is to require emitters to surrender Allowance credits to atone for their pollution, on main of being whacked with financial penalties for failing to do so on time. These are the Excess Emissions Penalties, so this is what it is all about, compadres.

Relevant for operators and those settling contracts with them, who have to worry about Reconciliation Deadlines and such messy practicalities.

An “Excess Emissions Penalty” is a penalty payment levied under the EU ETS on a end-user who is a Receiving Party under an Allowance Transaction, and who missed the deadline for surrendering Allowances as a direct result of a failure by a Delivering Party to transfer Allowances when due under that Allowances Transaction. Only likely to be relevant if (i) your counterparty is some kind of power station or carbon monster and (ii) the Transaction is due to settle just before April 30th in any year, when Allowances must be submitted.

An EEP Equivalent is an amount for which a Receiving Party becomes liable to a third party end user under a different Allowance Transaction — along the contractual chain, as it were — which is nonetheless occasioned by Delivering Party failing to settle a transfer of Allowances under this one.

Obe case is an actual penalty, the other one a delta-one derivative of a penalty, and both amount to the same thing. IETA and ISDA recognise this by wrapping “EEP Equivalent” into the concept of EEP Amount (optionally, at any rate, although it is hard to imagine when you wouldn’t apply the equivalent).

You would like to think EFET’s Carbon Squad would have done likewise, or at least come up with a better term than “EEP or EEP Equivalent” — which appears a mouthwatering 48 times in the document — to define it, especially since there doesn’t seem to be any optionality under the EFET.

At least, we suppose, they didn’t say, “EEP or EEP Equivalent as the case may, for the time being and from time to time, without limitation, be”.

Premium content

Here the free bit runs out. Subscribers click 👉 here. New readers sign up 👉 here and, for ½ a weekly 🍺 go full ninja about all these juicy topics 👇

• The JC’s famous Nutshell™ summary of this clause

edit

See also

edit