Why Must the Project Company Only Sell Its Power into the Wholesale Market in a VPPA?

Mar 14, 2022

Reading Time : 2 min

The basic payment terms in a VPPA are a formula: Fixed Price minus the Floating Price, where (a) the Fixed Price is a set $/MWh price, and (b) the Floating Price is the variable wholesale price. If the Floating Price is greater than the Fixed Price, the Project Company will owe the difference to the C&I customer. If the Floating Price is less than the Fixed Price, the C&I customer will owe the difference to the Project Company. The Fixed Price is typically set to where, more often than not, the C&I customer is expected to receive more money from the Project Company than the C&I customer has to send to the Project Company.

A fundamental principle underlying the payment term in VPPAs is that the Project Company receives the wholesale price (that is, the Project Company receives the Floating Price) from the wholesale market through its physical sale of electricity into the wholesale market. This is primarily what ensures that the Project Company can pay the C&I customer if the wholesale price (i.e., the Floating Price) is greater than the Fixed Price.

If all or a portion of the electricity produced by the Project Company can be physically sold, instead, at a fixed rate to another customer (that is not the wholesale market), the creditworthiness of the Project Company will be jeopardized due to its payment obligations under the VPPA:

1. First, a mismatch will be created between the $/MWh price the Project Company will receive from such third party sale versus the wholesale price. For example, if the wholesale price is $50/MWh (and greater than the Fixed Price) and the third party’s fixed price is $40/MWh, the VPPA payment formula will require the Project Company to pay the C&I customer as if it received $50/MWh, instead of the $40/MWh it actually received, for every MWh sold to the third party. This creates a cash flow concern for the Project Company with respect to where it will receive the $10/MWh shortfall it must pay to the C&I customer, thus creating an uncertainty of payment to the C&I customer.

2. Second, there will also be a mismatch between such third party’s creditworthiness versus the wholesale market’s creditworthiness. Wholesale markets for electricity (until Texas Winter Storm Uri in 2021) are typically considered very safe. Even after Winter Storm Uri, a third party purchasing physical electricity from the Project Company is probably less likely to pay its bills as compared to the wholesale market. This creates more uncertainty as to the Project Company’s ability to pay the C&I customer because the C&I customer must rely on the third party’s ability to pay the Project Company for the Project Company to pay the C&I customer.

Some of these credit concerns could be partially mitigated through credit support, but any type of credit support, absent an unlimited parent guaranty, has its limits. Instead, a Project Company will provide a covenant to the C&I customer that the Project Company will not physically sell the electricity it is financially settling with the C&I customer to anyone, except for sales into the wholesale market.

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.