Category: Consulting Services

Blog Post: Wasted Wind

The Transmission Challenge Threatening SPP’s Renewable Energy Future

Author: Maha Mapara, Senior Energy Analyst, REsurety  

Maha Mapara, REsurety
Maha Mapara
Senior Energy Analyst, REsurety

Transmission congestion has become a growing issue over the last several years. As more wind and solar capacity has been installed in the U.S., delivery of least-cost energy to load centers has become increasingly difficult. Due to this, higher-cost energy is dispatched to meet the load requirements; driving up electricity prices for consumers, decreasing deliverability of cleaner energy sources, and decreasing grid reliability. In order to offset congestion-based revenue losses, grid operators and market participants can use financial instruments to hedge against congestion. This article focuses on Southwest Power Pool (SPP) to explore the impacts of congestion and how these impacts can be mitigated. 

One of the major effects of transmission congestion is on electricity prices. Locational Marginal Prices (LMPs) determine prices in wholesale electricity markets. LMPs are dependent on location, supply, demand, and transmission constraints. When a transmission line is congested, it becomes economically less efficient to dispatch power across that line. This results in a higher LMP at the delivery point compared to the injection point (where generation is located). A congested transmission element, coupled with oversupply at the injection point can drive LMPs to low or even negative values for the generating wind or solar projects. 

SPP is a Regional Transmission Organization (RTO) that serves approximately 18 million residents in all or part of 14 states. This wind-rich region has seen a large wind capacity expansion from ~16GW in 2017 to ~34GW in 2024. In 2017, SPP became the first operator in North America to serve more than 50% of its load at a given time using wind generation alone. Wind power has consistently been the largest single source of generation over the last few years, accounting for 37% of total generation in the winter 2025 quarter. Furthermore, comparatively lower installation costs and Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) prices than other U.S. regions position SPP as an attractive region for wind development. 

However, the grid-system market value of wind energy in SPP is the lowest among all U.S. operators at $13/MWh in 2023. This represents a 60% lower market value for wind relative to average wholesale prices, driven by a combination of profile- and congestion-based value reductions. The congestion-based value reduction stems directly from inadequate transmission infrastructure.

The current infrastructure lacks the capacity to transmit the plentiful, low-cost wind energy typically located in rural areas to more distant urban demand centers. For example, many wind projects located to the west and north of Oklahoma City face ‘deliverability’ issues to the city due to transmission constraints. This creates significant price differentials between the point of generation and the point of demand, ultimately leading to revenue losses for wind projects on one end, and higher consumer prices on the other.

To quantify this issue in a simple manner, we can consider wind generation to be ‘deliverable’ if the price difference between the point of generation and Oklahoma City is less than 10%. The figure below shows a consistent decrease in the deliverability of wind energy from 38% in 2018 to 15% in 2024. At the same time, installed wind capacity in SPP increased by nearly 19GW, underscoring the disparity between wind generation and existing transmission capacity. 

Blog Post: Wasted Wind - Figure 1: Average deliverable wind generation from SPP to Oklahoma City

To address transmission constraints, SPP identified transmission system components, or ‘flowgates’, that experienced severe bottlenecks from 2022 to 2024. One of these flowgates is the Cimarron 345/138 kV XF 3 transformer, located just west of Oklahoma City. It is responsible for stepping down high-voltage power for local distribution and incurred over $50 million in congestion costs over the 24-month period. Several reasons contributed to this: multiple wind generators upstream producing at the same time, outage of other transformers at the same substation, and the connection of major new projects like the 998 MW Traverse Wind Energy Center in March 2022. As a result, the transformer became the most congested flowgate west of Oklahoma City by the fall of 2024. The economic impact of a constraint is measured by the shadow price, and for this flowgate, it reached a 12-month rolling average of over $60/MWh in the winter of 2025. This means that for every additional MWh of electricity that could have been transmitted through this bottleneck, the system would have saved $60 on average.

Given the significant financial impact of such congestion, market participants like utility companies and electricity suppliers often utilize financial hedging instruments to reduce their exposure. Financial Transmission Rights, also known as Transmission Congestion Rights (TCRs) in SPP, are instruments that function like an insurance policy; a TCR is purchased in an auction and provides its holder with a payout when there is a price difference between two points on the grid in the day-ahead market. Consider a simple example: a wind project in western Oklahoma experienced a $5/MWh nodal price, while the price in Oklahoma City was $70/MWh. If the wind project held a TCR between these two points, it would have received a payment for the $65/MWh price spread, minus the purchase price. This mechanism would have allowed the project to offset the revenue lost to congestion, thereby locking in more predictable earnings. However, in areas with chronic congestion, the cost of acquiring TCRs can escalate significantly, potentially making them prohibitively expensive or leading to scenarios where the purchase effectively locks in a loss for a project. Conversely, if congestion doesn’t materialize as anticipated, a TCR holder might have overpaid for their hedge.

The real-world impact of this hedging was evident in the SPP TCR market results for the winter 2025 quarter. Load-serving entities collectively earned $837 million through the congestion hedging market, more than covering their $707 million in day-ahead congestion costs. In contrast, other participants like generators and financial entities did not fully cover their total day-ahead congestion cost of $544 million. Nevertheless, hedging still proved beneficial, leading to a $341 million reduction in this total.

Ultimately, while financial instruments like TCRs provide a mechanism for managing the economic risks of congestion, they are a treatment for the symptom, not the cure. The persistent bottlenecks and declining deliverability of wind power in SPP underscore an urgent need for physical solutions. Recognizing this, SPP’s Board of Directors, in October 2024, approved $7.7 billion for 89 transmission upgrades. This investment includes 2,333 miles of new transmission and 495 miles of transmission rebuilds. Such efforts are expected not only to relieve congestion but also to enhance grid resilience and boost renewable investment in the region.

DISCLAIMER: This blog post contains information related to REsurety and the commodity interest derivatives services and other services that REsurety provides. Any statements of fact in this presentation are derived from sources believed to be reliable, but are not guaranteed as to accuracy, nor do they purport to be complete. No responsibility is assumed with respect to any such statement, nor with respect to any expression of opinion which may be contained herein. The risk of loss in trading commodity interest derivatives contracts can be substantial. Each investor must carefully consider whether this type of investment is appropriate for them or their company. Please be aware that past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results.

All information, publications, and reports, including this specific material, used and distributed by REsurety shall be construed as a solicitation. REsurety does not distribute research reports, employ research analysts, or maintain a research department as defined in CFTC Regulation 1.71. Image: iStock/Petmal.

Blog Post: Reducing Exposure to VPPA Price Volatility with a Settlement Swap Agreement

Reducing Exposure to VPPA Price Volatility with a Settlement Swap Agreement (SSA)

Authored by Aaron Perry, Director, Commodity Trading Advisory, REsurety

Aaron Perry
Aaron Perry
Director,
Commodity Trading Advisory

Virtual power purchase agreements (VPPAs) are a powerful and popular way for clean energy buyers to contract solar and wind energy. But recent market, regulatory, and policy shifts might expose buyers to more financial risk than they’ve seen in the past. 

Price volatility has become the rule, not the exception — and for clean energy buyers, the stakes are rising. Now is a great time to examine your risk management strategy and understand what options you have to mitigate your exposure to power market volatility.

This article explains one such approach to gain more budget confidence: a settlement swap agreement (SSA).

How VPPAs work with SSAs

In a VPPA, the clean energy buyer doesn’t take physical delivery of the power. They pay a fixed price (aka strike price) per MWh generation, but the electricity gets sold into the local market. They receive the associated RECs and the wholesale market price as settled at a defined hub or node. This is also often known as a contract for differences (CfD).

The market price can fluctuate, exposing the buyer to volatility. Sometimes the difference between their VPPA strike price and the wholesale market price pays out in their favor; sometimes the reverse is true.

How VPPAs work with SSAs Figure 1

A settlement swap agreement (SSA), also known as a VPPA hedge, can help clean energy buyers reduce their exposure to this power market volatility and provide more confidence around their VPPA settlements.

Through an SSA, the clean energy buyer is able to pass the market price along to a third party, such as a commodity trader. In return, the buyer receives a fixed SSA price. Thus, they’ve offset a volatile portion of their VPPA and increased the stability of their cashflows.

How VPPAs work with SSAs Figure 2

With a VPPA and SSA both in place, a clean energy buyer effectively only needs to pay the difference between the VPPA price and the SSA price, while still receiving the environmental attributes from the clean energy project (i.e., RECs).

The buyer will still need to consider seasonal and weather-related variations in generation for budgeting, but the exposure to fluctuations in market price are removed.

How VPPAs work with SSAs Figure 3

What does an SSA look like in practice?

The price offered for an SSA will depend on the current market price for power at a project, which could be higher or lower than the VPPA price. If the SSA price is higher than the VPPA price, the buyer will receive revenue from the net of the two deals. If the SSA price is lower, then the buyer will pay out on net. Both of these scenarios are potentially beneficial, in that the settlements on a $/MWh basis are more consistent than the volatility and variability in power markets. 

Let’s consider a hypothetical wind project in Texas with a $35/MWh VPPA. Over the past few years, annual settlement has varied between -$13M and $29M. Depending on natural gas prices — which are the primary driver of wholesale electricity market prices — forecasted settlement could vary anywhere from -$5M to $10M. (When natural gas prices are low, wholesale prices drop too, potentially putting the VPPA under water. When natural gas prices are high, electricity market prices also rise, putting the VPPA “in the money.”)

The figure immediately below shows REsurety’s historical back cast for the period 2011–2024, showing the -$13M to $29M spread. The notable spike in 2021 was the combined result of higher overall natural gas prices plus the impact of Winter Storm Uri, which saw ERCOT electricity market prices peak at $9,000/MWh.

What does an SSA look like in practice?

In the forecast graph below looking ahead at years 2026–2035, the blue column represents REsurety’s baseline case using projections about generation buildout and demand growth, as well as market natural gas prices. The green and purple columns represent high and low natural gas scenarios, respectively. The base case looks good, but if natural gas prices fall (and wholesale electricity market prices with them), it could leave the VPPA and clean energy buyer in the negative.

Net Settlement by Forecast Scenario Figure 1

If a buyer wanted to hedge the next three years and was able to get an SSA for $37/MWh, they would “lock in” $2/MWh for the term of the hedge, or roughly $1.2M annually, assuming average project generation in each year.

Net Settlement by Forecast Scenario Figure 2

If the buyer didn’t want to hedge the entire project, even at 50% of their contracted volume, the forecasted volatility would shrink to -$2M to $6M over the hedge term.

Net Settlement by Forecast Scenario Figure 3

Finally, let’s say the buyer wanted to reduce their risk for the remaining term. Longer-term hedges can sometimes be more expensive, so let’s assume a $33/MWh hedge (instead of $37/MWh for the short-term hedge). In this case the buyer would “lock in” a -$2/MWh for the remainder of the VPPA term. This cost can be thought of as the implied cost of renewable energy certificates (RECs) as well as the cost of risk management.

What are my risks?

Like all financial instruments, an SSA isn’t risk-free. All of the examples provided in this article assume a simple structure for the swap portion of the VPPA. However, most VPPAs are more complex than that, with price floors, availability guarantees, basis provisions, damages provisions, and other terms that can impact the calculation of settlement or trigger payments.

The biggest risk of an SSA is that one of these terms can trigger payment if the VPPA isn’t matched (or back-to-backed) in the SSA. For instance, if the buyer signs an SSA with a $0/MWh price floor, but there is no price floor in the VPPA, then the buyer may be liable for payment under the VPPA but not receive the needed level of protection from the SSA. 

Ensuring alignment between the VPPA and SSA is incredibly important prior to entering these contracts. REsurety aims to mitigate this risk by including the original VPPA in the SSA contract to help remove ambiguity and make the intent of the hedge clear. In cases where terms cannot be perfectly aligned, understanding what the gaps and impact are is important to understanding whether this type of hedge is right for you.

How do you get started?

Fill out the form below to explore the Wind VPPA Hedge Simulator tool, which allows you to simulate a 10-year VPPA and a hedge for a wind project in Texas to get a better intuitive understanding of the settlement swap agreement product.

Wind VPPA Hedge Simulator

Fill this out and try the wind VPPA hedge simulator yourself

"*" indicates required fields

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Name*
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form

DISCLAIMER: This blog post contains information related to REsurety, Inc. and the commodity interest derivatives services and other services that REsurety, Inc. provides. Any statements of fact in this presentation are derived from sources believed to be reliable, but are not guaranteed as to accuracy, nor do they purport to be complete. No responsibility is assumed with respect to any such statement, nor with respect to any expression of opinion which may be contained herein. The risk of loss in trading commodity interest derivatives contracts can be substantial. Each investor must carefully consider whether this type of investment is appropriate for them or their company. Please be aware that past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results. Image: iStock/Petmal.

All information, publications, and reports, including this specific material, used and distributed by REsurety shall be construed as a solicitation. REsurety does not distribute research reports, employ research analysts, or maintain a research department as defined in CFTC Regulation 1.71.

Blog Post: Billions at Stake

Green hydrogen

How 45V is Shaping Green Hydrogen Production

Authored by Mikhail Sharov, Senior Analyst, Consulting Services, REsurety

Mikhail Sharov
Senior Analyst, Consulting Services
REsurety

Worth $18 billion in 2023, the annual U.S. hydrogen generation market is poised to expand to $31 billion by 2033. Hydrogen has myriad diverse commercial applications across varied industries: as a precursor to ammonia in fertilizer production, as an input for methanol fuel in shipping, in metals refining and processing, in fuel cells, and for direct process heat.

What is green hydrogen?

Today, most hydrogen is produced from fossil fuels (natural gas and/or coal as feedstocks). This results in a heavy carbon footprint for two reasons: greenhouse gases (GHG) released from the breakdown of the natural gas or coal itself, and CO2 released when burning fossil fuels for the high heat required of those processes.

Green hydrogen, on the other hand, is produced using electrolysis, splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen via an electrolyzer, and is powered by renewable energies. Naturally, the process of electrolysis does not produce GHGs – the only byproduct being oxygen. And since that electrolysis uses renewable electricity, it releases no energy-related emissions (unlike burning fossil fuels for process heat). As a result, growing momentum promises to make green hydrogen central to decarbonization of hard-to-abate sectors. 

For this reason, green hydrogen is highly valued, and although its 2024 U.S. market size was approximately $270 million, this segment is expected to increase to ~$5 billion by 2033.

45V and H2 production lifecycle emissions

To incentivize the production of green hydrogen, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) created a subsidy for hydrogen in Section 45V of the bill. Section 45V establishes a tax credit for the production of green hydrogen, with the specific value of the tax credit determined by the amount of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emitted per kilogram of hydrogen produced. 

In a world of “perfect” green hydrogen, 100% of the power would come from clean electricity such as that generated by solar photovoltaics and wind farms. In the real world of 45V, participation in the tax credit requires that a kilogram of hydrogen is produced with no more than 4 kgCO2e emitted. However, the most desirable level of credit (at $3.00/kg H2) is allotted to production with less than 0.45 kgCO2e per kilogram of hydrogen.

This highlights the importance of one of the main requirements of 45V: lifecycle greenhouse gases — an analysis of emissions over the entire course of production. For other hydrogen production methods, this would include the use of natural gas or coal for gasification, which results in a significant carbon footprint. Additionally, it must include the emissions generated by the source of electricity.

Let’s take a closer look at how easy (or difficult) such emissions levels are to achieve in a place such as Texas, which has a non-insignificant amount of solar and wind energy on the grid and is also one of the U.S.’s potential hydrogen hubs.

To understand the total lifecycle environmental impacts associated with hydrogen production, the DOE developed the 45VH2-GREET model. Using this model for an imagined hydrogen producer in ERCOT, we can estimate that by simply using the standard grid mix (including common, highly emitting gas and coal-fired plants), 20 kg of CO2e are produced per kg of hydrogen. Despite the electrolysis process itself producing no emissions, this is still a far cry from even the 4 kg needed to qualify for the low end of the 45V tax credit. Therefore, it is clear that renewable participation in the creation of green hydrogen is essential for any project to successfully take advantage of the tax credit. In fact, the GREET model shows that in ERCOT, over 98% of utilized energy must be clean (using solar or wind) to achieve the highest credit bracket.

How annual vs. hourly matching impacts green H2 calculations

Current accepted practice for carbon accounting (annual matching) allows a company to purchase and retire RECs from anywhere and anytime over the course of a year, and apply them at will to their electricity load and consumption also over the course of a year. Since hydrogen producers prefer to run electrolyzers at essentially steady state, this allows them to take excess solar generation from the daytime and apply it toward nighttime hydrogen production.

Starting in 2030, 45V requirements change that in a big way. The most contentious stipulation of 45V, known as hourly matching, will require producers to demonstrate that the clean energy they’re applying toward their hydrogen production was generated in the same hour as the electrolyzer’s electricity consumption. This is a dramatic and consequential shift that would render large portions of current clean energy procurement unusable toward 45V tax credits.

To illustrate the difference, consider a hypothetical green hydrogen project in ERCOT’s West Hub with an 80 MW electrolyzer and a power purchase agreement (PPA) with a 250 MW solar project.

Under an annual matching system, solar generation is sufficient to meet 100% of electrolyzer consumption and according to the 45VH2-GREET model, the total emissions of a kg of H2 is zero. This is great, as the electrolyzer will produce ~1.6MT H2 per hour and receive $3,000 per MT in 45V PTCs.

Figure 1. Under an annual matching model, all clean generation could be used to offset utilization making this project have no life-cycle emissions and qualify for the highest PTC bracket
Figure 1. Under an annual matching model, all clean generation could be used to offset utilization making this project have no life-cycle emissions and qualify for the highest PTC bracket.

When switching to an hourly matching requirement, all overprocurement is non-applicable — resulting in only 41% of hours matching fully! Daytime solar generation exceeding the electrolyzer’s consumption is discarded. Meanwhile, the solar plant does not produce electricity overnight, therefore no tax credit could be claimed in those hours.

Figure 2. Maintaining an annual procurement strategy when switching to an hourly matching requirement is inadequate. Energy within any given hour could only be counted against the same hour’s utilization, resulting in less than half of the hours being fully matched.
Figure 2. Maintaining an annual procurement strategy when switching to an hourly matching requirement is inadequate. Energy within any given hour could only be counted against the same hour’s utilization, resulting in less than half of the hours being fully matched.

The necessity of rethinking procurement

As demonstrated, the change to hourly matching mandated by 45V requires a rethinking of procurement strategy for many hydrogen developers. In particular, developers will need to build a diverse procurement portfolio, because a mix of wind and solar will be required to match the electrolyzer consumption during both day and night.

A fine balancing act emerges between procuring enough clean energy to fuel the electrolyzer but cutting overprocurement as it will not apply to matching generation. One possible solution is creating a diverse portfolio of projects and limiting purchases to a fraction of each project’s capacity. This strategy would provide a wide base for consistent energy production while limiting overprocurement. Still, this is easier said than done and comes with high transaction costs and portfolio management overhead. In addition, even the most diverse portfolio will not guarantee 100% electrolyzer utilization due to the nature of intermittent renewable production.

We have created a simulated scenario in which a 100 MW electrolyzer will be powered by power purchase agreements from three different sources at varying contracted fractions. We encourage you to try to optimize this portfolio by modifying each project’s contracted fraction, balancing the electrolyzer’s load with overprocurement.

100 MW Electrolyzer Hourly Matching Simulator

Fill this out and try the wind 100 MW Electrolyzer Hourly Matching Simulator yourself

"*" indicates required fields

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Name*
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form

It is worth noting that although this particular simulation and blog post focus on 45V and green hydrogen, the same challenges faced by hydrogen producers would be faced by a broader set of market participants should the GHG Protocol require hourly matching, as is currently proposed in ongoing revisions.

Moving forward, hydrogen producers looking to take advantage of green hydrogen PTCs will require a more nuanced approach to procurement. Optimization solutions like the one explored in this article require large amounts of data for analysis and subject matter expertise because forecasting and portfolio management become increasingly important to project economics. This quickly becomes complex, requiring, for example, stochastic modeling of generation outages and curtailment, alongside expected variations due to different weather conditions at different project sites.

The hourly matching requirement undoubtedly increases the cost and complexity of purchasing clean electricity for electrolytic hydrogen. Therefore, producers should keep in mind resource type, procurement diversity, and stringent portfolio management when setting their strategies for green hydrogen production and 45V compliance.

To learn more or speak to a member of our team, please click the button below.

This article contains a collection of information related to REsurety, Inc. and the commodity interest derivatives services and other services that REsurety, Inc. provides. Any statements of fact in this article are derived from sources believed to be reliable, but are not guaranteed as to accuracy, nor do they purport to be complete. No responsibility is assumed with respect to any such statement, nor with respect to any expression of opinion which may be contained herein. The risk of loss in trading commodity interest derivatives contracts can be substantial. Each investor must carefully consider whether this type of investment is appropriate for them or their company. Please be aware that past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results. Image: iStock / Petmal.

Return to the blog post main menu.