Template:Emissons EEP summ

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.

{{{{{1}}}|EEA Amount}} is pretty much the same between ISDA and IETA. EFET goes off on one.

Relevant for operators and those settling contracts with them, who have to worry about {{{{{1}}}|Reconciliation Deadline}}s and such messy practicalities.

An “{{{{{1}}}|Excess Emissions Penalty}}” is a penalty payment levied under the EU ETS on a end-user who is a {{{{{1}}}RP}} under an {{{{{1}}}|Allowance Transaction}}, and who missed the deadline for surrendering {{{{{1}}}|Allowances}} as a direct result of a failure by a {{{{{1}}}DP}} to transfer {{{{{1}}}|Allowances}} when due under that {{{{{1}}}|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 {{{{{1}}}|EEP Equivalent}} is an amount for which a {{{{{1}}}RP}} becomes liable to a third party end user under a different {{{{{1}}}|Allowance Transaction}} — along the contractual chain, as it were — which is nonetheless occasioned by {{{{{1}}}DP}} 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 {{{{{1}}}|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”.