Texas Hedging: Why Did Some Projects Emerge Unharmed While Others Are in Trouble?

Mar 22, 2021

Reading Time : 2 min

A hedge agreement is a contractual device used to lock in a predictable, per-unit price against commodity price fluctuations; however, although a hedge agreement transfers price risk away from the facility owner, volumetric (or production) risk often remains with the facility owner.

There are two basic types of hedges in the Texas market, distinguished by how the hedge is settled, and each type handles production risk quite differently. One type, a fixed-shape hedge, settles pursuant to a set megawatt hour (MWh) schedule that is independent of the actual megawatt hour production from the facility. The second type, a percentage-offtake hedge, settles pursuant to a percent (sometimes 100%) of the megawatt hour production from the facility. Facilities that lost their production capabilities due to the Texas storm generally faired neutrally if they had percentage-offtake hedges because no energy was settled against ultra-high market prices. Conversely, the facilities with a fixed-shape hedge were the ones that generally fared poorly because they were forced to settle (in accordance with their set MWh schedule) against such high market prices without the benefit of receiving these high market prices through their physical production of MWhs.

The following chart demonstrates a typical hedge arrangement (whether it is a fixed-shape or percentage-offtake hedge) (note, for simplicity, this shows a financially settled hedge, but the concept equally applies to a physically settled hedge).

Hedge documents primarily capture the arrangement between the project company and the hedge provider, which is illustrated in the top half of the chart above. Revenue received from the wholesale market, based on the facility’s actual production, is what underpins the ability of the project company to pay the hedge provider through financial settlement (or to schedule and deliver energy at the hub, if this is a physically settled transaction). This wholesale revenue is represented in the bottom half of the chart. In a fixed-shape hedge, the transaction between the project company and hedge provider continues, regardless of whether the project company is receiving revenue from its actual production. In a percentage-offtake hedge, the settlement between hedge provider and project company is dependent upon (and directly correlated to) the amount of production from the facility.

When the hub price reaches $9,000 per MWh and the facility shuts down due to icy conditions, a fixed-shape hedges continues settlement of the hedge arrangement, based on the $9,000-per-MWh price and predetermined settlement quantity; however, a percentage-offtake hedge will not settle because the quantity will be zero. As a result, the project company with a fixed-shape hedge must pay the hedge provider the difference between $9,000 and the strike price when it has no underlying revenue coming in, which is the primary cause of the liquidity crunch many facilities in Texas with hedge offtake agreements are facing (that is, project companies with fixed-shape hedges).

While renewable energy hedges in Texas are, as a whole, lumped together as poor performers in the recent Texas winter storm, the facilities with percentage-offtake agreements emerged (generally) unscathed while the facilities with fixed-shape hedges generally are hurting.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Speaking Energy

July 8, 2026

On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued an order to ISO New England Inc. (ISO-NE) directing ISO-NE and ISO-NE participating transmission owners to show cause as to why ISO-NE’s tariff should not be found to be unjust and unreasonable (ISO New England Inc., 195 FERC ¶ 61,215 (2026) (Order)) because it fails to sufficiently:

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 7, 2026

On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari in Leonard Hoffmann v. WBI Energy Transmission, Inc. (Hoffmann), which presents the question whether section 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) requires pipeline companies using federal eminent domain authority to pay landowners’ attorney’s fees in states where landowners can recover those fees under state law. In the decision giving rise to the Supreme Court’s review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that a group of ranchers were not entitled to recover their $383,300 in attorney’s fees incurred while negotiating their compensation—creating a circuit split with four other courts of appeals. Hoffmann will be heard during the Court’s October 2026 Term, and marks the second time in five years that the Court has agreed to interpret NGA section 7.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 6, 2026

On June 29, 2026, the United States Supreme Court issued Trump v. Slaughter, fundamentally reshaping presidential removal authority over independent regulatory agencies. The decision overruled a 90-year-old precedent established in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which had upheld the constitutionality of commissioner removal protections in the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act). As written, the FTC Act permits a commissioner’s removal “only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” In Slaughter, the Court was asked to reevaluate this standard following the President’s removal of a Democratic-appointed FTC commissioner from office in 2025 without cause. Finding for the President, the Court held that removal was permissible because the FTC Act’s for-cause removal protections for commissioners violate the separation of powers, specifically, the President’s removal power under Article II. The Court explained that the FTC exercises executive power because it promulgates binding rules, investigates and enforces those rules through administrative adjudications, and brings civil enforcement actions in federal court. It found that because it exercises these executive powers, its commissioners “must therefore be controlled by the Chief Executive, in whom such power is vested.” While previous recent cases addressing the scope of the Removal Power, Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Collins v. Yellen purported to preserve some kernel of Humphrey’s, the Court made clear that “[i]f anything more is left of Humphrey’s, we overrule it.”

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

June 25, 2026

On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued an order to the California Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO) directing CAISO and CAISO transmission owners to show cause as to why CAISO’s tariff should not be found to be unjust and unreasonable (California Indep. Sys. Operator Corp., 195 FERC ¶ 61,214 (2026) (the Order)) because it fails to sufficiently:

...

Read More

© 2026 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.