EPMI is entering into more and more transactions that are settled against a floating, published index price. Our physical contract does not currently provide for what happens if the published source is not available or is otherwise materially changed. Under ISDA for financial trading, this is addressed as a Market Disruption Event (MDE). Under ENA's standard contract for financial trading, there is included as a MDE "the imposition of trading limits on the range within which the price of the commodity may fluctuate". What this may mean is that if a cap is imposed on power prices, then in lieu of using the capped price to determine the floating price, you would be required (under ISDA) to eventually get brokers to determine what the price would have been without the cap. I want to add language to our physical contracts that addresses material changes/disappearance of the published prices that would mirror the financial trading terms and doubt whether we would want to make the imposition of a cap on power prices a MDE. If you treat the imposition of a cap (say in CA of prices to $500 or in NEPOOL to $1,000) as a MDE, then we would be required to secure quotes as to what the price would have been without the cap each time that a pricing date trades at the cap level. This only seems fraught with litigation risk to me. Alternatively, if caps are not deemed a MDE, then you would always settle against the published prices, even if they are "artificially" determined after the trade was entered into. While caps are not appealing, I think it would be better to not have the imposition of caps be considered a MDE. I have spoken with the financial trading group and they will follow our lead on this. So, depending upon what you both think, we will make sure that financial and physical power are treated the same on this issue. Thanks for your thoughts.

Generate a subject line for this email.
Index Transactions