Contracts for Difference Risks

Posted on November 10th, 2014 Jo No comments

The UK Governments Electricity Market Reform (EMR) is a moving feast, or trough, if you are of the opinion that any state subsidy is a subsidy too far. My, how people complained and complained about the Renewables Obligation (RO), perhaps one of the worlds best stimuli for pushing forward wind power development. Yes, some rich engineering firms and rich landowners got richer on the back of the RO. What do you expect. The wealthy always leverage their capital. But at least the RO has produced some exceptional wind power generation numbers. In the period 2017 to 2018 however, the RO is set to be staged down and replaced by several elements in the EMR, most notably, the CfD or Contracts for Difference, otherwise affectionately and quite inaccurately described as the FiT CfD Feed-in Tariff Contracts for Difference.

The basic plan for the CfD is to guarantee to new electricity generators, or old generators building new plant, a definite price on power sold, in order to ensure they can get debt and equity invested in their projects. However, this is a huge state intervention and potentially entirely scuppers the efforts to create a market in electricity. More dangerously, although the CfD is supposed to encourage the freeing up of capital to support new energy investment, it might fail in that, at least in the short-term, and it may even fail to make capital cheaper. This is due to the new kinds of risk associated with the CfD particularly because of the long lead time from auction to allocation, and the cap on allocations. The CfD is designed to create project failures, it seems.

I recently attended an event hosted at the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre in Westminster in London, called Energy4PowerLive 2014 and managed by GMP. The first session I attended was in the RenewablesLive 2014 stream, and featured a panel discussion between Andrew Buglass from Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), Philip Bazin of Triodos and Steve Hunter, Investment Director of Low Carbon.

What follows is not verbatim, and is based on my handwritten notes, and my handwriting is appalling, so that sometimes, even I cannot read it.

[ Andrew Buglass, Managing Director and Head of Energy, Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS). Financing CfD projects initial impressions from a lender ]

[You may have an interest in the actions of] RBS [heckle from the audience, We own it !]. We built our first renewable energy project in 1991 an onshore wind turbine. Now we [have helped] finance 9 gigawatts of renewable energy. I have 15 minutes only possible to scratch the surface of CfDs [Contracts for Difference a subsidy under the UK Government Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) Electricity Market Reform (EMR))]. The EMR journey has been a very long one four years. We have offered advice to the government about the bankability of the policy. DECC have a different policy perspective they are going over here [in this direction] whether or not [Their aim was to] encourage new sources of investment debt and equity, [currently] not here in the UK. [] Matt Hancock, new [energy] minister [] £115 [billion ?] []. Half of £100 billion needed by end of decade. The EMR framework is [intended] to bring in new sources of debt and equity its ability to track that into the market. Im not going to review whether the EMR will be successful. Its a Nought to Sixty question [reference to how quickly it takes for cars to accelerate], how quickly is capital going to be delivered [getting up and running]. There will be a big step up in terms of work [] how are different counterparties [countersigning parties in the CfD contracts] responding. Now is the time to deliver on the [practical economics] for those to decide whether to invest or not. Need to engage the ratings agencies getting debt from bond markets to convince Standard and Poor etc to convince [] The first projects are going to take a long time cutting their teeth. Cost, availability, terms of debt. The risks that will [come into play] :

A. OFFTAKE RISK BASIS RISK

[At the start of the EMR discussions] we highlighted that small generators found it hard to get PPAS [Power Purchase Agreements]. With the CfDs lender of last resort offtaker of last resort [] may support less strong balance sheets for PPAs. Great because we need a lot more liquidity in PPAs. [However] the basis risks on the strike price compared to the reference price if this is [changed, different] a concern about whether they might be matching in the middle [and so conferring no benefit to having arranged the CfD]].

B. WHOLESALE PRICE RISK

In offshore wind wild the economics of generating. In onshore wind power, the wholesale price has less of a way to fall [because of many years of learning and maturing of supply chains etc].

C. INDEX INFLATION RISK

The CfDs are to be linked to CPI [Consumer Price Index] rather than the RPI [Retail Price Index]. This may seem like a not very important difference but at the moment you cannot hedge against the CPI. [] we recommend RPI linked to lock in. Cant do that with CPI.

D. FORCE MAJEURE RISK

[Risk] especially during construction. The CfD does not pick up during construction need to see [how this pans out].

E. CHANGE IN LAW (CIL) RISK

Twenty pages of the CIL clause doesnt seem to give you much protection what is a foreseeable change in law. Unless youre a big utility you will not have been tracking [policy and legislation] for the last ten years. Big risk. In the RO [Renewables Obligation], CIL risk was set to the offtaker. Law firms are going to really agonise [over this in the CfD].

F. LIFETIME MANAGEMENT RISK

Risk relating to managing CfD contract during its lifetime. There is a risk from the termination of a CfD more than in the RO. May need to do more work to keep lender involved to manage termination risk.

Leads to a gloomy approach in banking paying back on time is good anything else is bad.

The EMR has cross-party support, but this is the most interventionist approach since the CEGB (Central Electricity Generating Board market). The politicians are saying no, no, wed never change anything from three parties. It would help if there were a public statement on that (I get calls about too many turbines). Initial projects will probably take longer to start than [under] RO. Collectively fund pragmatic solutions.

[ Philip Bazin, Head Project Finance Team, Triodos Bank. Financing CfD projects initial impressions from a different bank ]

Triodos was established in 1980, and started in the UK in 1995 with the acquisition of Mercury [] Our portfolio in the UK is still relatively small. Over a third of the £500 million is in renewable energy. Our investment [] basis of positive social and environmental outcomes. [] Core lending of £1 to £15 million finance [] construction [] and up to 15 years [on loan repayment]. Smaller developers best fit. The bank is almost becoming part of the supply chain in the bidding process. Give a forward fixed rate of interest. Weve had to think about how we provide this derivative. Discussions with PPA providers. Feeling that most a lot of new players. The whole rush around CfD was quite unhelpful. We havent been engaging with any bidders for this round [of CfDs]. Our customers are small generators or community groups. Smaller projects are risk-averse and would [probably] use the RO instead of the CfD [for now]. These markets are going to find this new structure [offputting]. Not ideal if youre a professional investor. [Andrew has explained the risks well] The biggest one for me is the risk of failing to achieve your LONGSTOP DATE [failure to start electricity generation by an agreed date], which would risk a termination [of the CfD subsidy agreement. This would destroy the economics of the whole project and therefore the investment]. What protections do you have as a sub-contractor. Another point is about wayleaves. [If you cant get your wayleaves in time] Fundamentally, the [CfD] mechanism is bankable. [However] in trying to fix a problem it [may] have created a total mess. Dont know if more capital will be going into projects.

[ Steve Hunter, Investment Director, Low Carbon. CfDs from an equity perspective ]

[Our business is in] Solar PV, Onshore wind, CSP in the Mediterranean area. We get there when project developer is doing land deals. We have a cradle-to-grave perspective. Land planning and grid access are major risks [and the guarantee of biomass feedstock for a biomass project]. The WHOLESALE POWER PRICE RISK someone needs to take it. Your view depends on your equity horizon. For us, the two big changes [from the RO] are the introduction of the ALLOCATION RISK and the removal of the power price risk. Dont know the budget for allocation. Only know one month before the [CfD] auction. The government has not released [a budget] for emerging technology. Timing. doesnt really work for solar. The idea of CfD versus RO for solar will not work. [Its all down to the project lifecycle] you could be waiting 14 or 15 months for a CfD allocation after making a bid, but grid connection deals are now closing in [at around 12 months if you do not take up your grid connection permission, you will lose it]. At the moment there is no competition between technologies. Is there enough CfD set aside for offshore wind projects. Yes. If CfDs are intended to deliver technology-neutral [energy mix] it doesnt yet. The REFERENCE PRICES for me are the significant risk. This is entirely new for CfDs. Because the CfD intended to bring lower cost of capital there is an implication for return [on investment] to the investor. Government will set [the reference prices]. Government just released [for some technologies] decreased [in a forward period]. The Government may have a very different view on forward power prices These reference prices come out of the air [there seems to be no basis for them]. When is final not final. When it comes from DECC. If consider 2018/2019 September, the tightest budget, you could afford 1,000 MW of offshore, [if there is a change in the reference price] you could only afford 700 MW. In the TEC Register from National Grid download this there is 1,000 to 1,200 MG in the pipeline onshore. If I was a wind developer with [grid] connection dates after the end of the RO, you can bet Ive already bid [for a CfD allocation] already. The political risk of changing the RO. May be a small amount of solar but anyway its too expensive. If the CfD is only to support onshore wind power is it achieving its goals. There will almost certainly be some modification [to the CfD or the reference prices ?]. Transparency. Oversupply. [Oversight ?] of setting reference prices. Increase in frequency of the CfD auction would be helpful. Would give developers more time to bid. Technologies like solar PV that could deliver large savings If no large solar is built They could put a minimum in [for the subsidy allocated to each technology] more positive. CfD represents long-term support. If the industry drives down the cost of renewable energy, CfD gives us an infill fix on revenue. It will give that certainty to get debt [and equity] in. It may be the support mechanism we need in the long-term. It could be the support mechanism we need for renewable energy