What are the EFET and ISDA framework agreements for in power trading?

At a Glance

• EFET and ISDA are the two market-standard framework agreements for over-the-counter (OTC) power trading in Europe. They legally bundle all individual transactions between two parties into a single contract.
• EFET (issued by Energy Traders Europe) is designed for the physical delivery of power and gas and is the standard in European energy wholesale trading.
• ISDA originates from financial derivatives trading and applies to purely financial transactions such as swaps, options, or virtual PPAs.
• Both enable close-out netting, the offsetting of all open positions into a single net amount, for example in the event of insolvency. Rule of thumb: physical delivery → EFET, pure cash settlement → ISDA.

Definition: What are EFET and ISDA?

EFET and ISDA represent two framework contract templates in wholesale energy trading. In power trading, they form the legal foundation for a large share of European over-the-counter (OTC) trading. Exchange-based power trading, by contrast, runs on the rules of the marketplace and its clearing house (e.g., the EEX rulebook and ECC Clearing Conditions), which are likewise highly standardized.

Although ISDA and EFET pursue similar goals, they differ significantly in origin, scope, and typical use cases. While EFET was developed specifically for energy trading, ISDA comes from the international derivatives business. Accordingly, EFET is used primarily for physical delivery contracts, while ISDA applies to purely financial transactions such as swaps, options, or virtual PPAs.

Why does Energy Trading need Framework Agreements?

European power trading is a business of immense trading volumes and constant repetition. Energy suppliers, municipal utilities, industrial companies, and energy traders close countless bilateral transactions with one another every day to trade power deliveries for the coming days, months, or years.

If every transaction had to be negotiated individually, the market would be barely manageable. That's why two parties enter into framework agreements, under which individual trades are simply documented through so-called Confirmations.

But negotiating such framework agreements individually each time would also mean considerable effort. After all, numerous factors have to be addressed: place of delivery, payment terms, termination rights, or clauses on Force Majeure (FM) and counterparty risk (also: credit risk) — that is, what happens if one party fails to meet its obligations due to force majeure or insolvency.

This is why standardized framework agreements exist. Agreements every market participant knows and which then only need to be adjusted, as needed, through annexes and contractual addenda.

Such legally clean contract templates give both sides a high degree of legal certainty vis-à-vis their counterparty. They also make it easier to meet regulatory requirements and manage risk more efficiently. For these reasons, regulators, risk managers, and compliance departments generally expect or require the use of standardized framework agreements under EFET or ISDA for OTC power transactions.

What is EFET?

An EFET framework agreement (officially the EFET General Agreement) is a standardized template contract for physical wholesale trading of power and gas in Europe, which legally bundles all individual transactions between two parties into a single contract.

EFET stands for European Federation of Energy Traders, an industry association of European wholesale energy traders founded in 1999 and based in Amsterdam, which rebranded itself as Energy Traders Europe in 2024. The old abbreviation, however, still stands for the standard contracts issued by the association, which have offered participants in Europe's then newly liberalized energy markets a uniform contractual basis since the early 2000s.

Today, with a number of updates along the way, they are among the most important contract frameworks for physical power and gas trading in Europe.

Structure of the EFET framework agreement

ISDA vs. EFET: The Key Differences

Both ISDA and EFET are standard framework agreements for international OTC energy trading, but they are designed and suited for very different types of transactions. Here's an overview of the differences:

What is Close-out Netting?

Close-out netting is a mechanism that, upon early termination of a framework agreement, offsets all open transactions between two parties into a single net amount, thereby significantly reducing counterparty risk.

Close-out netting is a core element of both EFET and ISDA. Under this mechanism — in the event of early termination of the framework agreement — all open transactions between the two parties are aggregated, offset against one another, and thereby reduced to a single net amount.

This mechanism applies, for instance, when one of the two parties becomes insolvent or otherwise materially breaches the contract. Close-out netting is one of the main reasons regulators, risk managers  and compliance managers generally insist on standard documentation under EFET and ISDA.

Why is Close-out Netting so important?

Close-out netting of a framework agreement is far from merely a practical convenience. If the open positions were treated as separate, standalone transactions, they could, for instance, be treated differently in the event of insolvency.

Depending on the applicable national law, an insolvency administrator could — or even would have to — sort and assess claims and counterclaims in such a way that positions favorable to the insolvent estate would be collected, while liabilities detrimental to the estate would be set aside. For this reason, ISDA and EFET invest considerable effort in maintaining country-specific legal opinions on the enforceability of their netting clauses.

Close-out netting is therefore fundamental to the insolvency resilience of a framework agreement, because it significantly reduces counterparty risk ex ante for both parties.

For banks and other regulated market participants, close-out netting serves another function: under Basel III, they are permitted to calculate their counterparty risk on a net basis — but only if the legal enforceability of netting in the relevant jurisdiction is supported by legal opinions ("netting opinions"). Framework agreements under ISDA and EFET — the latter also relevant for banks, for example in financing generation assets — are important building blocks for meeting this requirement.

Example: EFET and ISDA in Practice

To get a sense of how this works in practice, let's look at a hypothetical example of a physical delivery arrangement under an EFET framework agreement. The mechanism for purely financial transactions under an ISDA Master Agreement works in exactly the same way, just with OTC derivatives instead.

A German renewable energy trader and a private French utility company sign an EFET framework agreement, including an Election sheet, in 2024.

In June 2026, they agree by phone on several forwards, each for 50 MW baseload:

Calendar year 2027: EUR 93/MWh

Calendar year 2028: EUR 81/MWh

Calendar year 2029: EUR 74/MWh

Calendar year 2030: EUR 71/MWh

Instead of drawing up a new contract, the two parties simply exchange a Confirmation — a one- or two-page document with exactly these key terms and a reference to the existing EFET framework agreement. Everything else — payment terms, default interest, force majeure provisions, termination events, dispute resolution — follows automatically from the framework.

Starting in January 2027, the renewable energy trader delivers power and settles the actually delivered volumes monthly at the agreed price. This continues through the 2028 delivery year, until the French utility files for insolvency at the end of 2028.

How does Close-out Netting work in Practice?

With the utility's insolvency, a so-called Termination Event occurs under the EFET framework agreement. The result: all remaining open forwards between the two parties are terminated early. No further delivery or payment takes place. Instead, the non-insolvent party — here, the German renewable energy trader — values each individual open position at the current market price as of the termination date.

The difference between the originally agreed contract price and the current market price produces a positive or negative value for each position. All of these values are then netted into a single amount, which is either payable by the insolvency administrator to the renewable energy trader — or, conversely, must be filed by the renewable energy trader as a claim against the insolvent estate.

What could have happened without Close-out Netting?

To illustrate the economic effect of close-out netting, it's worth looking at the hypothetical scenario without this mechanism. Let's consider the two forwards for delivery years 2029 and 2030 that are still open. The 2028 tranche has already been settled by the termination date.

By the time of the insolvency, the market price for baseload forwards in 2029 has risen to EUR 78/MWh. The renewable energy trader, who would have to deliver at the originally agreed price of EUR 74/MWh, would therefore face a loss of EUR 4 per MWh. For the insolvent utility, by contrast, this position would generate a theoretical gain of EUR 4/MWh flowing into the insolvent estate.

At the same time, however, the market price for 2030 baseload has fallen to EUR 65/MWh. Here too, this stands against the agreed price of EUR 71/MWh — but the picture reverses: the energy trader would be delivering EUR 6/MWh above market, and the insolvent utility would owe the corresponding amount but be unable to pay it, since it is insolvent.

Without close-out netting, the insolvency administrator — depending on the applicable national insolvency law — could be tempted to treat the two transactions in isolation: pursuing the favorable 2029 position as a claim against the energy trader, while rejecting the trader's counterclaim on the unfavorable 2030 position. In other words, the administrator could try to engage in what is commonly known as cherry-picking.

The result would leave the renewable energy trader with a loss from 2029, without being able to realize the offsetting gain from 2030 — its claim would only be served as an unsecured insolvency claim, typically at a very low recovery rate.

What Difference does Close-out Netting make?

The EFET General Agreement (or for financial transactions, the ISDA Master Agreement) prevents exactly this kind of cherry-picking: it requires close-out netting to be applied to all transactions under the agreement.

At 50 MW baseload each (roughly 438,000 MWh per year), the two positions considered here net out to +EUR 2/MWh in favor of the energy trader — around EUR 876,000, which it can file as a single claim against the insolvent estate. Only this netted view gives the trader — and every other market participant — the planning and balance-sheet certainty they need.

(Of course, it's equally possible for the close-out netting result to favor the insolvent counterparty. But the resulting amount will always be lower, net of all counterclaims, than what could be achieved through successful cherry-picking.)