Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
The producer has sold an amount of production - say 30,000 MwH - forward and has committed to exchanging his production - if there is any - to anyone who presents these units (essentially redeemable shares which carry no rights to income) in exchange for energy actually supplied.

This isn't a futures contract, where a contract owner/holder could demand delivery, and the turbine may then default. What happens here is that when delivery by the turbine actually does take place, units may be exchanged instead of conventional money, thereby allowing the turbine owner to "redeem" the units and cancel some of the obligations of indeterminate duration he took on to fund the turbine.

If the turbine is down, then customers in possession of units have to get their supply from someone else (a utility?), who may or may not accept energy units in exchange, which they probably would if the rate was less than that they are accustomed to paying the turbine for its excess capacity.

But there is no need for customers to sell the units: they may simply keep them and use them at a later date.

The risk is that the turbine cannot produce - over its life - sufficient energy to redeem all of the energy units sold.

"Overselling" is a form of "evil" which the investment banks who put projects together, and energy market regulators, would have to prevent.

Underproduction is a different issue, and if (say) the turbine was destroyed, then (mandatory?) insurance would kick in and compensate investors (through a buyback at market price) or pay for a rebuild etc etc

But there would be no "evil" double counting.

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Sat Jan 19th, 2008 at 12:29:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:


Top Diaries

Occasional Series