Template:Emissions Delivery summ

Settlement (ISDA), Scheduling (EFET), Primary Obligation (IETA) — the core provision that sets out who pays what, where and to whom, for {{{{{1}}}|Option Transaction}}s and {{{{{1}}}|Forward Transaction}}s.

The JC is no great fan of definitions, but God only knows, in the ISDA one would have come in handy here. You know, a “Purchase Amount” for Forward Transactions, or a “Strike Amount” for Option Transactions (or a “Payment Amount”, for both) might have been nice, given they are the key concepts in Option Transactions and Forward Transactions.

As for “Allowances to be Delivered” — okay, there is at least a term for the physical half of that, but it’s rubbish. What about “Delivery Amount”?

There is a distinction between the “Number of Allowances” — effectively the notional size of the whole trade — and the “Allowances to be Delivered” — the portion of it that is settling on any given day. The difference is that American options can settle in part, on any day in the term of the Transaction. Forwards typically don’t — they all settle on a pre-agreed settlement date

(To be fair to the Emissions ninjas at IETA, they do have this concept: “Contract Amount”).

Well, the JC has introduced these words into the nutshell summary to make life a bit easier to follow. Just remember they are not there in the real thing. Unless you put them in.

Cash Settlement: Trick question. There is no provision for cash-settlement in the emissions trading world. Will that stop counterparties asking you to specify a settlement method? Probably not. Does it matter? Also probably not. What if you want a cash settlement option? Not out of the ballpark — one’s eligibility for EMIR, and as such hedge exemptions, might depend on whether the forward is able to be cash-settled, in theory, or not. (There is no good reason for this: it springs from the paranoid brow of those toiler legal counsel who trying to parse the eligibility or Emissions derivatives under the refitted delegated regulations of MiFID 2 — our advice is just don’t go there — but you just never know.)

Transfer from a specified Holding Account

Curious conditionality, across all three versions, where the {{{{{1}}}DP}} specifies a {{{{{1}}}|Holding Account}} from which {{{{{1}}}|Allowances}} must be delivered, and not just the account to which they must be delivered. Quite why it should matter whence the {{{{{1}}}|Allowances}} come we cannot say — a vague fretfulness about theft perhaps? — but ok; let’s run with it.

Note, in any case, its moderation in IETA (5.2) whereby one has an obligation to make sure there are sufficient allowances in your account to satisfy your delivery obligation. So even though you can’t be forced to deliver from anywhere else, you can be sued for losses arising from your failure to ensure there was something to deliver in your Holding Account. All rather cack-handed, but in “fundamental upshot” terms, this does get to the right place.

The transfer is done once the {{{{{1}}}|Allowances}} hit the {{{{{1}}}RP}}’s account (I know, I know: you don’t say.) But wait: there is an interesting use of the word “whereupon” here, upon which we dwell in a bit more detail in the premium section.

Agreement specific points

Delivery Points and Transfer Points

In order to shoehorn the Emissions product into the EFET Master Agreement architecture — being a power and gas trading document, it thinks in terms of grid injections and inputs and outputs to a set network of pipes and cables — the EFET Allowances Appendix calls the Holding Accounts “Delivery Points” (for the Seller’s Holding Account) and “Transfer Points” for the Buyer’s Holding Accounts). It also, variously, calls them Holding Accounts too, by the way, but worth mentioning.