June 2026

Summary of the June Meeting of the Emerging Issues Task Force

by James Christenson, Chase Hodges, Chris Chiriatti, and Brandon Coleman, Deloitte & Touche LLP

This EITF Snapshot summarizes the June 23, 2026, meeting of the Emerging Issues Task Force (EITF or “Task Force”). Initial Task Force recommendations are summarized by the FASB staff in an agenda decision memo for the Board’s discussion at a public meeting. On the basis of such discussion, the Board determines whether to add a project to the FASB’s technical agenda and votes on all substantive decisions (including a cost-benefit analysis). The Board then directs the staff to draft a proposed Accounting Standards Update (ASU) for a vote by written ballot. These decisions are expected to be made at a single meeting. After the FASB approves the draft proposed ASU, it is exposed for public comment. When the comment period ends, the FASB considers the comments received; redeliberates the issues at a public Board meeting; and, ultimately, issues a final ASU.

The official EITF meeting summaries are posted to the Deloitte Accounting Research Tool (DART) and to the FASB’s Web site. EITF meeting materials (released before the meeting and used to frame the discussion) are also available on those sites.

Issue 1 — “Application of the Topic 815 Normal Purchases and Normal Sales Scope Exception to Electricity Contracts”

Status: Agenda decision reached.

Affects: All entities.

Background: At its December 2025 meeting, the EITF Agenda Committee added a project to its agenda to address the application of ASC 815,1 as well as the normal purchases and normal sales (NPNS) scope exception, to retail power purchase or sale agreements (PPAs). The EITF discussed this issue at a nonpublic education session in March 2026 and deliberated this issue at its June 23, 2026, meeting.

The issue summary discusses the emergence of “retail PPAs entered into by large retail buyers” (commonly known as hyperscalers) “to secure a reliable supply of electricity” so that the buyers can “operate power-intensive data center facilities.” These retail PPAs “are characterized by (a) significant volumes of electricity, (b) long-term durations (often up to 20 years), and (c) contractual features such as minimum volume commitments designed to support recovery of infrastructure investments.” These arrangements often meet the definition of a derivative under ASC 815 and therefore must be accounted for at fair value through earnings, unless a scope exception from derivative accounting can be applied. Further, the issue summary notes that “certain features commonly present in these long-term retail PPAs — such as regulatory approvals, construction contingencies, and uncertainty in future electricity demand — can make it difficult to meet the requirements of the NPNS scope exception, particularly the requirement that physical settlement be probable throughout the contract term.” The issue summary explores whether the ASC 815 scope exceptions, including the NPNS exception, should be amended in light of these retail PPAs.

While deliberating the merits of this issue at the meeting, the Task Force considered the following alternatives:

Alternative 1 — Providing a new scope exception related to retail PPAs.
Alternative 2 — Refining the NPNS scope exception in either of the following ways:
- Alternative 2A — Establishing a quantitative threshold related to net settlements, “with or without permitted types of net settlements.”
- Alternative 2B — Including retail buyers within the scope of the current electricity-capacity NPNS exception.
Alternative 3 — A component approach, which consists of disaggregating a retail PPA into “(a) derivative components that represent portions of the contract that the entity is probable to net settle and (b) an executory contract component to which the entity would apply the NPNS scope exception.”

Summary: At its June 23, 2026, meeting, the EITF recommended that the FASB add to its agenda a project on refining the NPNS scope exception to accommodate retail PPAs. Specifically, the meeting summary notes that the Board would consider the following potential alternatives for the evaluation of physical settlement by buyers when determining whether a retail PPA qualifies for the NPNS scope exception:

“Substantially all (90 percent) of the contractual quantities must be physically settled, with certain permitted net settlements.”
“Seventy percent of the contractual quantities must be physically settled.”

Provided that the specified threshold is reached and all other criteria for the NPNS scope exception are satisfied, the physical settlement criterion would be met and the arrangement would qualify for the NPNS scope exception.

The EITF also recommended that certain disclosure requirements be improved (e.g., those related to key contractual terms).

Next Steps: On the basis of an agenda decision memo prepared by the FASB staff, the Board will discuss, at a public meeting, whether to add this project to its agenda. The Board’s discussion is expected to address transition and whether to permit early adoption.

Issue 2 — “Consideration Payable to a Customer”

Status: Agenda decision reached.

Affects: All entities.

Background: At its March 2026 meeting, the EITF Agenda Committee added a project to its agenda to clarify the scope of payments made on behalf of, or to customers of, customers. The EITF deliberated this issue at its June 23, 2026, meeting.

As noted in the issue summary, payments made on behalf of, or to customers of, customers are “prevalent in business models that involve intermediaries that connect buyers and sellers.” While such payments are common at “technology-driven platform-type” companies, they are not limited to such companies.

The issue summary highlights diversity in practice related to when payments made to customers of customers, or on behalf of customers of a customer, should be subject to the guidance in ASC 6062 on consideration payable to a customer. Under that guidance, an entity must “account for consideration payable to a customer as a reduction of the transaction price and, therefore, of revenue unless the payment . . . is in exchange for a distinct good or service . . . that the customer [or customer of a customer] transfers to the entity.” The issue summary further emphasizes that the EITF is not attempting to “change what form of payments should be evaluated as consideration paid to a customer . . . or the framework used to determine if payments made to a customer are in exchange for a distinct good or service.”

While deliberating the merits of this issue at the meeting, the Task Force considered the following alternatives (quoted from the issue summary):

Alternative A: Payments made on behalf of a customer, or to a customer of an entity’s customer, should be evaluated as consideration payable to a customer when there is either (1) an explicit or implicit promise to the customer that such payments would be made or (2) the payment represents an in-substance price concession to the customer that has a reasonable expectation that the payment will be made to the customer’s customer.
Alternative B: Payments made on behalf of a customer, or to a customer of an entity’s customer, should be evaluated as consideration payable to a customer when there is an explicit promise to the customer that the payment will be made, or the customer predominantly benefits from a payment made by the entity.
Alternative C: Any payments made on behalf of a customer, or to a customer of an entity’s customer, should be evaluated as payments made to a customer.

Summary: At its June 23, 2026, meeting, the EITF made the following decisions regarding this issue:

As noted in the meeting summary, the EITF voted unanimously in favor of Alternative A, recommending that “[p]ayments made on behalf of a customer, or to a customer of an entity’s customer, should be evaluated as consideration payable to a customer when there is either (1) an explicit or implicit promise to the customer that such payments would be made or (2) the payment represents an in-substance price concession to the customer that has a reasonable expectation that the payment will be made to the customer’s customer.” In addition, the Task Force recommended that illustrative examples be provided to help entities determine the meaning of an “implied promise” and a “reasonable expectation” and suggested it be clarified that Alternative A was intended to include payments made on behalf of a customer’s customer.
EITF members also unanimously recommended that the proposed changes be required for all entities.

Certain EITF members expressed the view that, if the FASB adds this project to its technical agenda, the FASB staff should consider permitting entities to use a prospective transition approach under which the amended guidance would apply to new contracts or new incentives offered to customers after the adoption date. However, other EITF members expressed support for a retrospective or modified retrospective transition approach.

Footnotes

FASB Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) Topic 815, Derivatives and Hedging.

FASB Accounting Standards Codification Topic 606, Revenue From Contracts With Customers.

The purpose of this publication is to briefly describe matters discussed at the most recent meeting of the Emerging Issues Task Force. This summary was prepared by Deloitte’s National Office. Although this summary of the discussions and conclusions reached is believed to be accurate, no representation can be made that it is complete or without error. Official meeting minutes are prepared by the Financial Accounting Standards Board staff and are available approximately three weeks after each meeting. The official meeting minutes sometimes contain additional information and comments; therefore, this meeting summary is not a substitute for reading the official minutes. In addition, tentative conclusions may be changed or modified at future meetings.

Deloitte is not, by means of this publication, rendering accounting, business, financial, investment, legal, tax, or other professional advice or services. This publication is not a substitute for such professional advice or services, nor should it be used as a basis for any decision or action that may affect your business. Before making any decision or taking any action that may affect your business, you should consult a qualified professional advisor. Deloitte shall not be responsible for any loss sustained by any person who relies on this publication.

The services described herein are illustrative in nature and are intended to demonstrate our experience and capabilities in these areas; however, due to independence restrictions that may apply to audit clients (including affiliates) of Deloitte & Touche LLP, we may be unable to provide certain services based on individual facts and circumstances.

As used in this document, “Deloitte” means Deloitte & Touche LLP, a subsidiary of Deloitte LLP. Please see www.deloitte.com/us/about for a detailed description of our legal structure.

Member of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.