Defusing The PPA Valuation Trap: Why IFRS 13 Now Demands Market-Consensus Pricing

Europe’s 80 GW of contracted wind and solar sits on a valuation fault line. The PPAs underpinning these assets are still priced and valued using methods designed for investments in a quiet corner of the power market, not objective reporting in a mainstream instrument.

For years, valuers treated long-dated PPAs as exotic instruments – filling data gaps left by limited market visibility with consultant forecasts, internal scenarios, or extrapolated baseload curves. These workarounds were defensible when the market was nascent.

That is no longer the case. A real market now exists – one with active participants and price discovery. The presence of this market has introduced a structural shift in how International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) 13 must be applied: when observable data becomes available, it must take precedence.

Under IFRS, certain clean energy contracts must be assessed at fair value per IFRS 13. And increasingly, gaps between legacy methods and compliance expectations are widening, creating a dangerous valuation trap. The longer the gulf persists, the greater the risk of abrupt and material valuation corrections.

A new reality under IFRS 13

IFRS 13 establishes a simple hierarchy for fair value:

• Level 1: traded prices for identical assets
• Level 2: observable market-based data
• Level 3: unobservable inputs such as forecasts or internal models

Long-term PPAs that qualify for fair value accounting were traditionally classified under Level 3 because reliable quotes did not exist. That has changed. Competitive tenders, structured hedges, and the entry of market makers and intermediaries now provide observable market pricing.

IFRS 13’s fair value hierarchy is explicit: valuations must maximize the use of relevant observable inputs and minimize reliance on unobservable ones (IFRS 13.67). Where observable Level 2 input exists, Level 3 model estimates are not a permitted alternative.

Why traditional approaches now carry material risk

Legacy valuation methods face increasing pressure for one core reason: they mark to model forecasts, not actual market reality.

Several risks are emerging as a result:

1. Misalignment with true exit prices. Model-driven curves reflect future scenarios, not the price of exiting the position to a willing counterparty today.
2. Heightened scrutiny under IFRS 13. Level 3 valuations trigger extensive disclosures – sensitivities, reconciliations, assumptions.
3. Calibration and operational burden. Day-1 calibration rules suggest booking the initial value of a contract at zero. Valuation teams must carry adjustments forward and reassess each period – an operational load that requires a consistent valuation methodology and input data.
4. Concentrated exposure to sudden corrections. The longer Level 3 persists, the larger the eventual correction or potential for surprises if a position is ultimately exited or marked-to-market. Such corrections often affect earnings, equity, or both. These risks accumulate quietly. Their impact is felt suddenly.

The consequences extend beyond accounting. Disconnected valuations distort hedging and capital allocation by referencing the wrong baseline. For buyers, an understated liability masks the true cost of exiting or restructuring a contract. In both cases, the CFO may learn the market’s view at the worst possible moment. And the impact can be material. As a rule of thumb, a 5 EUR/MWh shift on a 100 MW, 10-year contract for solar in Germany represents EUR5 million in unrealized exposure.

Market-consensus pricing as an observable input

Observable pricing intelligence has made a new approach both possible and increasingly necessary.

Market-consensus pricing aggregates executable quotes, polled indications, and data from executed transactions from utilities, traders, IPPs, funds, and corporates – inputs that qualify as Level 2 under IFRS 13. This data is now commercially available: Pexapark publishes IOSCO-aligned daily PPA Fair Values and Forward Curves across more than 15 European markets. The infrastructure for Level 2 compliance exists; the barrier is adoption. Auditors are increasingly focusing on the traceability of inputs used in fair value assessments. As noted by EY’s Francisco Jimenez: “IFRS 13 requires prioritizing quoted inputs and properly documenting those that are not.” This emphasis reinforces the obligation to use observable market data where available and underscores the need for internal processes to align with external expectations.

The shift from Level 3 to Level 2 delivers immediate benefits:

• Defensibility and simplicity: Valuations anchored to observable data withstand scrutiny, demand lower disclosure burden under IFRS 13.
• Clarity: Mark-to-market movements reflect actual market dynamics, not model forecasts.
• Timeliness: Strategic decisions such as procurement, hedging, financing, and asset decisions reflect real pricing – not theoretical scenarios.

Why many corporates still avoid Mark-to-Market

For corporate PPA buyers, the reluctance is understandable. Many signed PPAs to lock in long-term energy costs, not to create trading positions. The goal is to stabilize the income statement, not mirror movements in power prices. As a result, many corporates default to cost-based or own-use treatment, avoiding fair value entirely, as permitted in some cases under IFRS rules.

This approach works – until it doesn’t. Contract renegotiations, early terminations, or portfolio sales force a market-based assessment regardless of internal policy. When that moment arrives, the gap between book and market value becomes visible – and often material. Internal shadow valuations based on observable market inputs, even if not reported externally, provides an early-warning mechanism that cost-based accounting cannot.

Defusing the PPA valuation time bomb before it goes off

Unrealized risk accumulates silently as markets move and assumptions stay fixed. The longer Level 3-based valuations persist, the larger the correction when market-based valuation arrives – whether triggered by audit, refinancing, or transaction. Replacing subjective price assumptions with observable market price data defuses that risk before it compounds. For many organizations, the most pragmatic first step is simple: introduce internal market-based shadow valuations before audits, transactions, or financing events force the issue.

Are you interested in unlocking more market insights?