What Makes Up The Beste Strømavtale Norge?

The Norwegian Water Management and Energy Directorate released a paper last year that examined the recent advancements in permanent power trading in Norway and was written by Copenhagen Economics. According to the research, the usage of PPAs has grown dramatically over the past several years and offers market players a welcome extra hedging option. 

There are legal hazards to take into account, even if a PPA can be used for a variety of reasons and situations. We want to clarify some legal nuances and offer our opinions on the prospects for PPAs with the Norwegian market in this piece.

Because of the way the Norwegian electricity market and system are set up, it is (nearly) always feasible for both the seller and the buyer to deliver both at the time of delivery, except the electricity. 

Under Norwegian law, unless the contract specifies otherwise, it is assumed that an agreed-upon quantity PPA entails a duty on the part of the seller to provide delivery power irrespective of the facility’s production, including buying power from the market to deliver to the buyer in the event that the seller’s own production is insufficient to meet the delivery obligation. 

The force majeure provision is not very useful, and the seller is only released from his contractual responsibility to supply the agreed amount in extremely rare circumstances, such as major grid outages or capacity constraints. This suggests that the seller is exposed to a substantial volume risk.

Typically, sellers who possess an extensive portfolio of hydropower plants find this risk tolerable. TheUsually, the vendor’s own plants will produce enough overall to guarantee delivery to the customer. However, with wind power projects, the vendor usually only has one or a small number of wind parks. 

For a wind plant owner, the risk associated with the delivery obligation under a predetermined quantity PPA can be substantial due to the erratic nature of wind power output and the elevated possibility of a force majeure incident impacting the seller’s whole production capacity.

One way to lessen this risk would be to negotiate a special provision in the PPA that specifies when the seller’s supply obligation may be stopped or decreased in the event that force majeure events prevent the facility from producing as planned; this is commonly referred to as “facility force majeure.”

In actuality, this clause expands the application of the standard force majeure section to include circumstances in which the seller is able to satisfy the duty of delivery (by using their market purchasing power), though this may be costly if the prevailing market price exceeds the agreed-upon contract price.

PPAs as produced

Different risk distribution, but more customization is needed for sellers who are willing to assume the entire volume danger of delivery to the buyer, the conventional beste strømavtale has worked effectively. The “as generated” PPA may be a better arrangement for wind power vendors. 

Under an as produced PPA, the seller usually agrees to provide the buyer with all or a fixed portion of the actual output at a particular establishment. Such PPAs require the production and distribution of electricity from one or more designated sources, rather than the delivery of power “in general.” 

With this feature, the buyer and seller agree to divide the volume risk, thus fundamentally altering the contract’s original risk distribution. Reduced delivery to the buyer due to no or little production at the facility results in a commensurate reduction in the buyer’s payment obligation.

For purchasers with consistent offtake of electricity who depend upon the PPA either sourcing and hedging, the as-produced PPA is less appealing. These purchasers run the danger of having to purchase a sizable portion of their consumption from the market at times when the seller’s facilities aren’t producing enough to meet the buyer’s needs.usage. 

This risk may be acceptable to customers who are less vulnerable to power market pricing, such as those who have flexible offtake arrangements or employ the as-produced PPA as one instrument among several in an integrated sourcing portfolio. When the PPA quantities are insufficient to meet the buyer’s use, an additional option is to couple the PPA with an alternative shorter-term arrangement for the provision of power.

Generally speaking, a PPA that is manufactured needs more customization than one with a set volume. The expense and danger of negotiations rise as a result. The generated PPA is less prevalent, even for wind farms, and has not, to our knowledge, been used in mergers or acquisitions. 

This is likely partially due to reduced attractivity for potential purchasers.used for Norwegian market hydropower (https://www.nrel.gov/research/hydropower.html) assets. However, there’s no reason why a PPA issued as it couldn’t be a compelling hedging option for hydropower plant owners as well, provided the business case is sound. 

It is clear from the illustration that the PPA as formed suggests a risk distribution that would be more appealing, say, for run-of-river facilities with little control over production changes. This can be a possibility to investigate with the appropriate buyer.

Is PPA use still necessary in the next generation of emission-free energy systems?

Over the past five years, Norway has seen a notable growth in PPA agreements. Given the regulatory uncertainties surrounding offshore wind power concessions at the moment, there’s a good chance that the curve will be as steep in the coming years.appears modest. 

Furthermore, the price of wind energy on land has decreased to the point where it may be simpler to get financing with greater merchant exposure. This suggests that PPAs within the Norwegian market may not have a bright future, at least when it comes to onshore wind generation.

There aren’t many PPAs associated with hydropower on the Norwegian market at the moment. One likely explanation is that, unlike hydropower, PPAs have not been required to secure the revenue level and secure project finance for wind installations. 

Additionally, historically, conventional hydroelectric power sellers have been more likely to prefer predetermined quantity PPAs with specific industrial clients or shorter term investment options, as explained above (since, among other things, resource rent may be subject to contract price-based taxes).

Through history, the PPA has shown to be a flexible instrument that can be tailored to meet the demands of both new and established market participants. This will undoubtedly be the case going forward. 

Opportunities to produce and use new renewable energy are abundant with the green revolution, and PPAs are expected to play a part in the zero-emission energy system of the future.

Industrial businesses often enter into large-scale power purchase agreements, and the contract’s residual value can be greatly impacted by changes in the price of electricity. A breach of contract might happen to the electricity provider. 

Should GIEK encounter problems as a guarantee to the power buyer, in the event that the buyer breaches the terms of the contract, the power provider may file a claim against GIEK. Both sides gain from the guarantee; the supplier lowers the risk of operating losses and the buyer may enter into a foreseeable long-term power purchase agreement.

Elevated degree of predictability

The premium will be set when GIEK provides a guarantee and will remain that way for the duration of the guarantee. At that point, the business will be aware of the total amount owed for the duration of the agreement. 

The evolution of the electricity price during the guarantee term won’t have an impact on the premium or necessitate the acquisition of further securities. According to Solheim, a promise from GIEK thus denotes a high degree of predictability.

Not just for the major corporationsThe guarantee program includes electricity buyers that are registered in Norway and operate enterprises that deal with metals, wood products, chemicals, and wood and timber processing. The public guarantee system is not limited to major power-intensive enterprises; GIEK can also provide guarantees to a group of various power-purchasing firms. 

Under the terms of the power purchase agreement, the enterprises must have a minimum yearly individual electrical consumption of 10 GWh and a minimum volume of 35 GWh over the agreement period. Power agreements with an initial duration of seven and a maximum of twenty-five years in length might be either financial or physical.