DAKOTAS NEBRASKA Manitoba SPPN SPPC MINNESOTA IOWA AECI ALTW ENTERGY LA Other WUMS CE_NI SMAIN W-ECAR TVA MECS AEP KENTUCKY Carolina Southern Company GridFlorida Ontario IEMO FIRST ENERGY APS NY West PJMWX VP NY East PJMEX NEPOOL Hydro Quebec Maritimes Putting Competitive Power Markets to the Test The Benefits of Competition in America s Electric Grid: Cost Savings and Operating Efficiencies Released JULY 2005 Gary L. Hunt, President, Global Energy Advisors Quantify Consumers Benefits from Wholesale Competition in the Eastern Interconnection 1999-2003 Sask Power WECC MAPP SPP ERCOT MAIN ECAR SERC NPCC MAAC Compare actual competitive market results with expected results under traditional ratebase regulated market. Global Energy simulated precompetitive market conditions. Eastern Interconnect modeled across 29 market zones FRCC 1
Global Energy s approach to the Study 1. Global Energy assessed the Eastern Interconnection wholesale electric power markets as they occurred in the 1999-2003 study period ( With Wholesale Competition Case) comparing those results to a simulated study case which excluded the regulatory changes, tariff protocols and market rules that enabled wholesale competition ( Without Wholesale Competition Case). 2. The Study used the Global Energy Reference Case, a widely accepted independent analysis of power market fundamentals. 3. Simulations were performed using Global Energy s STRATEGIC PLANNING software (formerly called Midas Gold Analyst) 4. Results in the PJM case study were derived from replicating the findings of the PJM Market Monitor. 5. Full Study results can be downloaded at www.globalenergy.com Two Introduction Study Cases: Regulated and Competitive Regulated: Without Wholesale Competition Operating Expenses Fuel + Variable O&M + Fixed O&M + Depreciation + Property Taxes + Income Taxes + Operating Income New Generation Built by Regulated Sector Competitive: With Wholesale Competition Operating Expenses Fuel + Variable O&M + Energy Purchases + Capacity Purchases Competitive Sector Revenues 2
Global Introduction Energy s Market Analysis Competitive Case Topology* ComEd integrated on May 1, 2004 Sask Power Manitoba MAPP MINNESOTA DAKOTAS WUMS Ontario IEMO NPCC New England AEP/DPL integrated on Oct. 1, 2004 WECC NEBRASKA SPPN SPP SPPC ERCOT MECS ALTW IOWA CE_NI AEP MAIN ECAR SMAIN AECI KENTUCKY TVA ENTERGY W-ECAR SERC SOUTHERN LA OTHER FRCC FIRST ENERGY PJMEX APS VP CAROLINAS GRID FLORIDA NY West NY East PJMWX MAAC PJM MISO MAPP (Non MISO) SPP RTO *PJM as of Oct. 1, 2004 Global Introduction Energy s Market Analysis Non-Competitive Case Topology Sask Power Manitoba MAPP MINNESOTA Ontario IEMO NPCC DAKOTAS WUMS New England ALTW MECS NY West ComEd, AEP, DPL modeled outside of PJM WECC NEBRASKA SPPN SPP SPPC ERCOT IOWA CE_NI AEP MAIN ECAR SMAIN AECI KENTUCKY TVA ENTERGY W-ECAR SERC SOUTHERN LA OTHER FIRST ENERGY PJMWX APS VP CAROLINAS NY East PJMEX MAAC PJM MISO MAPP (Non MISO) SPP RTO FRCC GRID FLORIDA 3
How Two Study Cases Differ Competitive Plants Without Wholesale Competition case: no merchant plants would be built but qualifying facilities built under PURPA were included. Regional Transmission Organization (RTO) Without Wholesale Competition case assumed FERC Orders 888 and 2000 never occurred and that RTOs were not formed, and RTO transmission rates are replaced with pancaked transmission rates, which traditionally existed in these areas. Market-Based Rates for Wholesale Energy Without Wholesale Competition case assumed marginal cost-based contracts replace market-based wholesale energy. Study Findings at a Glance Consumer Value from Competition Energy Efficiency Gains Consumers realized $15.1 billion in annual savings in 1999-2003 study period from competitive forces Nuclear plant efficiency gains enough to supply energy required for 10 million homes for one year. Coal plant efficiency gains enough to supply 25 million homes for one year Opening PJM to competition from Midwest power plants $84.5 million in annualized savings from wholesale price reductions and lower transmission costs. 4
Consumers realized $15.1 billion in value from wholesale electric competition 20 Cumulative Consumer Benefit $ Billions 15 10 5 0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 88,686 MW Competitive Plant Additions 1999-2003 5
Without Competition: More coal and higher O&M Combustion Turbine (9,225 MW) $50 Capital Expenditures $38 $31 Billions $ $25 Combined Cycle (7,380 MW) Pulverized Coal (20,295 MW) $0 Traditional Competitive Without Wholesale Competition With Wholesale Competition Electricity Consumer Benefit With Wholesale Competition Without Wholesale Competition Consumer Benefit Fuel (Fossil and Nuclear) 156,971 160,979 (4,008) + Variable O&M 19,515 21,902 (2,387) + Competitive Energy Purchase 11,495-11,495 + Competitive Capacity Value 2,220-2,220 + Fixed O&M - 7,610 (7,610) + Depreciation - 2,670 (2,670) + Property Taxes - 931 (931) + Income Taxes - 3,289 (3,289) + Operating Income - 7,960 (7,960) Operating Expenses (millions $) 190,200 205,342 (15,141) 6
Wholesale Competition Dramatically Improved Efficiency of Power Plants 10,000,000 homes served by nuclear efficiency gains 13% savings in nuclear plant refueling time since 1999 8% lower nuclear O&M costs 17% improved nuclear plant capacity factors1995-2004 25,000,000 homes served by coal plant efficiency gains 4% gains in coal plants heat rates since 1999. 14% lower coal plant O&M costs 16% improved coal plant capacity factors 1995-2004 % Improvement in Refueling Outage Length 15% 29% Traditional Competitive SOURCE: Global Energy 7
Nuclear O&M Improvements* 33% 1% Traditional Competitive SOURCE: Global Energy *After adjusting for inflation Nuclear Plant Capacity Factors 78% 88% 91% 1995 1999 2004 SOURCE: Global Energy 8
Coal-Fueled Generation Heat Rate Improvements 13,000 12,500 Btu/kWh 12,000 11,500 11,000 10,500 1999 2004 1999 2004 10,000 Traditional Competitive Environmental impact of heat rate improvement is 12.3 million fewer tons of coal burned each year for the competitive fleet. SOURCE: Global Energy Coal Plant Capacity Factors 61% 67% 71% 1995 1999 2004 SOURCE: Global Energy 9
Coal Plant O&M Improvements* % improvement since 1999 15% 13% Traditional Competitive SOURCE: Global Energy *After adjusting for inflation Case Study: PJM Market Opening Impacts AEP PJM 2003 ComEd DPL AEP October 2004 10
Expanding PJM in 2004 produced $85.4 million in annualized cost savings from competition Global Energy compared integration of ComEd, AEP and DPL into PJM with a simulated 2004 market case in which they did not join PJM. Finding: 4.2 percent decline in load-weighted spot market power prices in PJM confirming PJM Market Monitor report Finding: Expanding PJM in 2004 produced $85.4 million in annualized cost savings from competition Introduction PJM Case Study Summary In 2004, ComEd, AEP and DPL joined the PJM, resulting in: Increased access between all markets in the eastern interconnect RTO-wide management of transmission and reserve markets. Analysis Summary: PJM s 2004 State of the Market Report Conclusion: The integration of ComEd, AEP and DPL resulted in changes to supply-demand fundamentals and a 4.2% decrease in PJM power prices from 2003 2004, when adjusted for fuel price increases. Global Energy s Independent Analysis: Confirmed PJMs findings and quantified savings in 2004 from the integration of ComEd, AEP, DPL & PJM supply & demand at $29.5MM for PJM and $36.4 MM for the Eastern Interconnect. Because ComEd integrated in May 2004 and AEP/DPL in Oct 2004, benefits not realized over entire year 2004. Global Energy estimated annualized savings at $69.8 MM for PJM and $85.4 MM for the Eastern Interconnect for 2004. 11
Significance Introduction of ComEd, AEP and DPL s Integration into PJM Resulted in major growth in PJM s market size: Installed Capacity: 77,800 MW to 144,000 MW (85% increase) Peak Load: 80,000 70,000 60,000 ComEd integration, May 2004 61,499 MW to 81,992 MW* (33% increase) PJM average load, 2003 & 2004 AEP & DPL integration, October 2004 Load (MW) 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 - Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2003 PJM 2004 PJM PJM minus COMED, AEP, DPL * 81,992 MW is the 2004 coincident peak load of COMED, AEP, DPL and PJM. PJM s Introduction Analysis of Supply & Demand PJM showed that the integration resulted in a shift in supply/demand fundamentals which benefited PJM customers - comparatively more new supply in PJM than new demand. 2003 2004 Source: PJM 2004 SOM Report 12
Global Introduction Energy s Market Analysis Simulation Results Results confirm PJM s conclusions that the changes to supply/demand fundamentals resulting from the integration of ComEd, AEP & DPL into PJM in 2004 benefited PJM. Global Energy s estimated benefits: 2004 Production Cost Savings Market Area Saving based on 2004 PJM Integration Timeline (Comed in May 04 & AEP/DPL in Oct. 04) Annualized Savings (Simulates Integration of ComEd, AEP, DPL on 1/1/04) PJM $29.5 MM $69.8 MM Eastern Interconnect $36.4 MM $85.4 MM Other benefits of PJM membership not analyzed. Such benefits could be captured in a comprehensive, LMP-based market simulation and cost benefit analysis. Global Introduction Energy s PJM Market Analysis Annualized Simulation Results $85.4 Million Rest of Eastern Interconnection Production Cost Savings $15.6 Million PJM Production Cost Savings $69.8 Million 13