The main problem is the determination of the future level of prices. The long term of contracts often makes it difficult to find robust prices that still apply to electricity at the long end of a futures curve. This so-called illiquid part of the market must be determined by internal models; Alternatively, a company can purchase price forecasts from external suppliers. The resulting price risks, inherent in the instrument and model used, are thoroughly monitored and covered by the buyer. It turns out that EEX standard electric futures are ideal hedging instruments. They make it possible to hedge price risks on a liquid and standardised market for a maximum period of six years. Depending on the amount of electricity expected, different strategies can be used. In general, companies choose a dynamic sequential strategy to manage a large engagement. Over time, an increasingly important part of the quantity to be produced is ensured for an approximate delivery time. Depending on the optionality of a ECA, more or less varied hedging strategies should be considered. Volume risks are also obstacles that must be circumvented by a precise contract structure. Exogenous factors can influence delivery (e.g.
B, failure of a transmission system). As a rule, bottlenecks are filled by deliveries purchased on the wholesale market. Contracts should therefore clearly define who is responsible for the additional costs. In addition to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals, companies also do business for economic and brand reasons. SPAs are economically attractive, as they often include pre-agreed prices for a set period of time, which limits the volatility of electricity prices, while the direct purchase of renewable producers ensures the long-term accessibility of energy costs. Companies should assess whether a corporate ECA is within the scope of U.S. accounting, ifrs, or both. Us-GAAP defines a derivative contract as a financial instrument or other contract with all of the following characteristics: Corporate PMs typically contain three of the four aforementioned characteristics, so the balance sheet depends on the contract`s ability to include a nominal amount. Often, these contracts can be structured in such a way that there is no reliably identifiable nominal amount. As a result, corporate PMs often escape derivative accounts under U.S. GAAP, unless there are contractual or minimum volumes set out in the contract. .