More Related Content Similar to The Energy Industry Update – February 2011 (20) More from ScottMadden, Inc. (20) The Energy Industry Update – February 20111. The ScottMadden Energy Industry Updategy y p
Highlights of Recent Significant Events and Emerging Trends
February 2011
Copyright © 2011 by ScottMadden, Inc. All rights reserved.
Vol. 12, Issue 1
2. Table of Contents
E ti S /Vi f th E ti S it 2Executive Summary/View from the Executive Suite 2
Executive Summary
Economic Outlook: Turning the Corner
Energy Industry Stock Prices—Electrics, Diversifieds Continue to Languish
Trends in Dividends, Earnings, and Valuations Among Selected Energy Sectors
Mergers and Acquisitions—Speeding Up?
Behind-the-Meter Products and Services: New Opportunity or Dot-Com Redux?
Residential Utility Customer Satisfaction: A Mixed Bag
Energy Supply, Demand, and Markets 10gy pp y, ,
Natural Gas: A New Normal or About to Make the Turn?
Two Views of the Impact of EPA Regulations on Power System Reliability in the U.S.
Infrastructure 13
Smart Grid 2.0: Integrating Smart Grid Into Utility System-Wide Business Planning
NERC Reliability Standards and Compliance Violations: A Roundup
Rates and Regulatory Issues 16
Electricity Cost Trends, Fuel Mix, and Regulatory and Market Models
Energy Costs and “Share of Wallet”: A Pushback Coming?
Climate Change, Environment, and Sustainability 19
Renewable Portfolio Standards: Comparing Resources with Goals
Energy and Environmental Policy: A Grand Bargain or Guerilla War on the Piece Parts?
Solar Development Remains on a Roll, But It Still Requires Subsidies
Copyright © 2011 by ScottMadden, Inc. All rights reserved.1
4. Executive Summary
Enhancing Value The economy is brightening, as the world continues to dig out of the “Great Recession.”
Energy consumption has begun to recover, but only modestly
Electric utility valuations have lagged the broader indexes; for some companies, this presents
t ti l t iti f bl i d i itipotential opportunities for reasonably priced acquisitions
In this slow-growth environment, utility companies are looking for growth opportunities. Some
options include both corporate mergers and acquisitions or asset acquisitions. Also, utilities
are pondering behind-the-meter products and services opportunities as growth vehicles,
enhanced by smart grid capabilities (if and when those capabilities come to fruition)
Diverging Trends in
Costs
Natural gas continues to be cheap and plentiful, with continued modest demand combined with
plentiful resources, including shale gas
These plentiful supplies, and the slow economic rebound, helped keep end-user gas and
power costs tame in 2010. However, the broader trend is that energy is taking a largerp , gy g g
proportion of the consumer “wallet”
In the renewables sector, solar photovoltaic module costs continue to fall, little by little.
However, the overall installed cost of solar remains high. Solar development, which had a
strong 2010, continues to require significant subsidies to achieve grid parity
The Beat Goes On...in
Regulation
Regulatory activity continues in both the environmental and energy arenas
The U.S. EPA continues to push tightening emissions requirements for power generators, with
unknown impacts on reliability and price of energy. The Administration’s rapprochement with
business and concern about economic growth might lead EPA to delay implementation.
However various interest groups may use the courts to keep the regulatory “train” goingHowever, various interest groups may use the courts to keep the regulatory “train” going
FERC is engaged as well, focusing on more aggressive enforcement of reliability standards
and also trying to resolve years-old issues regarding transmission cost allocation
Copyright © 2011 by ScottMadden, Inc. All rights reserved.3
5. Economic Outlook: Turning the Corner
E i G th I Pi ki g U U S E i G th A l t I t 2011Economic Growth Is Picking Up
Economic growth is expected to continue into 2011, aided
by compromise over extension of tax credits and extended
unemployment insurance benefits
While some forecasts are quite bullish (4% to 5%), the
median among economists is 3% for 2011
U.S. Economic Growth Accelerates Into 2011
2%
4%
Year
Rate
U.S. Real GDP Growth – Actual and Selected Forecasts (%)
median among economists is 3% for 2011
CFOs Are Optimistic but Cautious
CFOs expect increased growth in both revenues and profits,
but have a slightly negative view of business conditions
Biggest concerns: healthcare costs revenue growth cash
-4%
-2%
0%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Year-Over-Y
GrowthR
Actual OECD
Conference Board Wells Fargo
BofAML WSJ Median
Biggest concerns: healthcare costs, revenue growth, cash
flow, consumer confidence, and corporate taxes
There are fewer downside risks in the near term, as most
believe a “double dip” has been avoided
A key near-term risk to the world economy: a significant
economic deceleration in China
Interest Rates May Increase Sooner Than Expected
Ten-Year Treasury Yield (2000–Early 2011) (%)
8
2011 Forecast
Blackstone ~5%
BofAML 4%
Capital Spending Expected to Increase
Continued growth in capital investment is expected as credit
loosened, especially for large firms, as well as tax
incentives. This may bring forward some capex from 2012
into 2011
-
2
4
6
Yield(%)
o %
Northern Trust 3.7%
Wells Fargo 2.98%
into 2011
M&A activity is expected to continue as well
Interest Rates Are a Worry, Inflation Less So
Increasingly, analysts are expecting interest rates to
increase especially as 60% of U S federal debt matures in
Commodity Prices Are on the Rise
Iron and Steel Scrap and Copper Prices (Jan. 2009–Aug. 2010)
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
increase, especially as 60% of U.S. federal debt matures in
the next three years and must be rolled over
Rising rates are expected longer term: By 2020, OECD
expects a large gap between savings and investment
needs, especially as investment in developing countries
accelerates
$0
$100
$200
$300
$400
$0
$1
$2
$3
$4
$/Ton
$/Pound
Copper (COMEX) ($/lb.)
Steel Scrap (Am. Metal Mkt.) ($/ton)
Copyright © 2011 by ScottMadden, Inc. All rights reserved.4
Core inflation has faded as a concern, but some key raw
materials and food prices are rising, as developing countries
post strong economic growth
$0$0
Sources: OECD; IMF; Kiplinger’s; Wall Street Journal; Wells Fargo; The Blackstone Group; Bloomberg;
Northern Trust; Bank of America Merrill Lynch; The Conference Board; U.S. Geological Survey
6. Energy Industry Stock Prices—
Electrics, Diversifieds Continue to Languish
Small Diversified Gas Companies Ahead of the Dow Since CrashDiversified and Electric Utilities Tracking The Dow Since 2005
3-Year Sector Performance
Normalized Daily Index Values (Dec. 2007–Dec. 2010)
175%
200%
Peaked at 206%
5-Year Sector Performance
Normalized Daily Index Values (Dec. 2005–Dec. 2010)
175%
200%
DJ Industrial Avg. SNL Energy Large Diversified
SNL Energy Small Diversified S&P Gas Utilities
Small Diversified, Gas Companies Ahead of the Dow Since CrashDiversified and Electric Utilities Tracking The Dow Since 2005
100%
125%
150%
175% Peaked at 206%
In May 2007
100%
125%
150%
SNL Merchant Generator S&P Electric Utilities
DJ Utility Index Citigroup MLP
0%
25%
50%
75% DJ Industrial Avg.
SNL Energy Large Diversified
SNL Energy Small Diversified
S&P Gas Utilities
SNL Merchant Generator
S&P Electric Utilities
DJ Utility Index
0%
25%
50%
75%
18-Month Sector Performance
Normalized Daily Index Values (Jun. 2009–Dec. 2010)
Ending Index Value (Start of Period = 100%)
Since
Mid‐2009
Since
End‐2007
Since
End‐2005
SNL Energy Large Diversified 116% 75% 95%
0%
Dec-05 Jun-06 Dec-06 Jun-07 Dec-07 Jun-08 Dec-08 Jun-09 Dec-09 Jun-10 Dec-07 Apr-08 Aug-08 Dec-08 Apr-09 Aug-09 Dec-09 Apr-10 Aug-10 Dec-10
Gas Upstream and LDCs Continue to Outpace DJIA, Electrics Trail
gy g
SNL Energy Small Diversified 132% 103% 115%
S&P Gas Utilities 142% 95% 134%
S&P Electric Utilities 105% 68% 95%
SNL Merchant Generator 88% 40% 70%
Citigroup MLP 161% 117% *125%
150%
175%
200%
DJ Industrial Avg. 134% 86% 105%
DJ Utility Index 114% 74% 96%
Despite low natural gas prices, gas LDC and gas MLP
stocks have done well. Moreover, electric and
50%
75%
100%
DJ Industrial Avg.
SNL Energy Large Diversified
SNL Energy Small Diversified
S&P Gas Utilities
S&P Electric Utilities
SNLM h G
Copyright © 2011 by ScottMadden, Inc. All rights reserved.5
Note: All index values are 100% at beginning of relevant period. * means not available.
Sources: SNL Financial; ScottMadden analysis
diversified utility stock prices continue to lag the
Dow, despite improving economic numbers.0%
25%
Jun-09 Aug-09 Oct-09 Dec-09 Feb-10 Apr-10 Jun-10 Aug-10 Oct-10
SNL Merchant Generator
Citigroup MLP
DJ Utility Index
7. Trends in Dividends, Earnings, and Valuations
Among Selected Energy Sectors
S ll Di ifi d B ki g E i g G th D liP i t B k V l ti E ilib ti g P t R i
600%
Year-End* Price-to-Book Value
(Capitalization-Weighted) (%)
Large Diversified
S ll Di ifi d
250%
Year-over-Year Net Income Growth Rate
(Capitalization-Weighted) (%)
Large Diversified
Small Diversifieds Bucking Earnings Growth DeclinePrice-to-Book Valuations Equilibrating Post-Recession
200%
300%
400%
500% Small Diversified
Electric
Merchant
Gas Utility
50%
100%
150%
200% Small Diversified
Electric
Merchant
Gas Utility
0%
100%
200%
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 3Q
2010
-100%
-50%
0%
50%
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Year-over-Year* Dividend Growth
(Capitalization-Weighted) (%)
Dividend Growth Down but Still Positive Utility valuations, as measured by multiples of book value, are
down from the mid-2000s
— A key question is whether these valuations are a return to
normal or some inflection point that signals a bottom or
b i t it
5%
10%
15%
20%
Large Diversified
Small Diversified
Electric
Gas Utility
buying opportunity
Dividend growth declined in response to the “Great Recession”
— Another driver is the desire to retain funds for the next wave
of capital investment
As one might expect, net income growth has trended downward
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
g p , g
— While slightly negative for most sectors in 2009, it was not
as negative as many had feared
— Early returns for 2010 show improved sales, especially
among industrial classes
— Small diversified utilities, however, seem to have been able
i i i i h d i h d
Copyright © 2011 by ScottMadden, Inc. All rights reserved.6
%
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 3Q
2010
Notes: *3Q 2010 is for quarter end. Sectors are derived by SNL Financial: SNL Large Diversified (electric &
gas utilities > $4 billion capitalization); SNL Small Diversified (< $4 billion); SNL Electric (electric only);
SNL Merchant; and gas utility components of the SNL Energy index.
Sources: SNL Financial; KeyBanc Capital Markets; ScottMadden analysis
to sustain positive earnings growth during the downturn
8. Mergers and Acquisitions—Speeding Up?
The first half of 2010 saw continued merger activity with large transactions like A t D l C i g B k Sl l F b t L g The first half of 2010 saw continued merger activity with large transactions like
PPL/E.ON, FirstEnergy/Allegheny, and Exxon/XTO. The second half continued
this trend, with both asset and corporate acquisition activity continuing
Some large transactions were announced at valuations that, for the most part,
represented very modest premiums. This could reduce the need for huge
synergies and perhaps lessen the risk of regulatory “claw back”
147 143
117 140
160$25
ons)
Power Generation Asset Deals
(Announced and Pending 2008–2010)
Asset Deals Coming Back Slowly: Fewer but Larger
Deal drivers were often related to scale:
— Increase balance sheet size to support infrastructure investment (NU/NSTAR,
for example, expect $6 billion in combined spending over the next several
years)
— Acquire assets or reserves in pursuit of growth (renewables,
shale gas) or while valuations are depressed (merchant generation)
$21.8
$9 5
117
60
80
100
120
140
$10
$15
$20
No. of Deals
on Value ($ Billio
shale gas) or while valuations are depressed (merchant generation)
— Expand base across which to spread fixed and corporate costs
The weak economy requires savings without layoffs and could pressure public
service commissions
— Despite synergy potential, many acquirers are relying on attrition, not politically
unpalatable layoffs
With ratepayers strapped for cash regulators may require compelling savings
$8.5 $9.5
0
20
40
$0
$5
2008 2009 2010
s
Transactio
Major Corporate Merger & Acquisition Announcements—Energy Companies
Share Deal
— With ratepayers strapped for cash, regulators may require compelling savings
passed along in rates, even absent large synergies
Total Transaction Value No. of Transactions
M&A Announced
Transactions (Corporate)
Companies Deal Value Price
Premium
Announced Sector Size Value/
Book Value
Exelon Corp./
John Deere
Renewables
$0.9B NA Aug. 2010
Renewable
generation
1.5 GW in various
development stages
NA
34
37
23
26
11
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
Northeast Utilities/
NSTAR
$4.2B
(plus $3.4B in debt)
~1.9% Oct. 2010
Electric
utilities
3.5 million
customers combined
NM
Chevron Corp./
Atlas Energy
$3.2B
(plus $1.1B in debt)
37% Nov. 2010
Upstream
gas
9 TCF (incl.
shale gas reserves)
2.2x
AGL Resources/
Nicor Inc
$2.4B
(plus $0 7B in debt)
13% Dec. 2010
Gas
utilities
4.5 million
customers combined
2.22X
33
36
69
37
34
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
Copyright © 2011 by ScottMadden, Inc. All rights reserved.7
Nicor, Inc. (plus $0.7B in debt) utilities customers combined
Duke Energy/
Progress Energy
$13.6B
(plus $12.1B in debt)
3.9% Jan. 2011
Electric
utilities
7 million
customers combined
1.36x
Sources: SNL Financial; The Wall Street Journal; Bloomberg.com; company websites; ScottMadden analysis
47
0 50 100
2010
9. Behind-the-Meter Products and Services:
New Opportunity or Dot-Com Redux?
Relative Technology Maturity of Behind the Meter Products Companies in our sector and outside it are trying to determine whether the smartRelative Technology Maturity of Behind-the-Meter Products
Adoption
Demand
response
aggregation
Distributed
resources
(traditional)
Distributed
Energy
monitoring/
d
ESCO
services
Companies, in our sector and outside it, are trying to determine whether the smart
grid will create a new era of business opportunity for behind-the-meter (BTM)
products and services. Some questions they have:
When will smart grid be capable of creating BTM opportunities?
What is different now from prior retail “waves” in energy?
How much integration is needed across value chain stages?
Maturity
Growthin
Distributed
resources
(emerging)
meter data
managementSmart
appliances
How will the revenue and profits of this BTM “renaissance” be divided among
segments and players? What operating and business models will emerge?
How will customers respond? Which segments can, or will, participate?
What are the scale and scope requirements to profitably offer BTM products?
Segment Description Example Players Some Drivers/Issues
Demand response
aggregation
Intermediators between customers and
utilities/regional ISOs to pool demand response
capabilities and provide peak load management
and curtailment services, capacity bidding, and
other services to reduce firm energy costs
EnerNOC
cPower
Comverge
Energy market expansion,
restructuring; ISO roles
Transparent price signals;
supportive rate structures
Public policy
other services to reduce firm energy costs
p y
Distributed
resources
(incl. renewables)
Distributed generation and storage for primary and
stand-by power, heating and cooling applications,
and grid ancillary services/renewables support
Capstone
Turbine
Caterpillar
Siemens
GE Energy
FuelCell
Energy
SunEdison
Installed cost (improving)
Resistance to net metering
buybacks and FIT structures
Grid-parity costs (esp. renewables)
Energy monitoring Software, hardware, analytics, and customer OPower eMeter Improved technologygy g
and management/
meter data
management
y
interfaces that provide signals, information on real-
time consumption
GridPoint
Smart Synch
Google
EnerNOC
Comverge
Tendril
Itron
Clear interoperability standards
Privacy concerns
“Performance contractor” stigma;
customer investment required
(also applies to ESCOs below)
ESCO services Energy audits and consulting; energy equipment Utility affiliates National
ESCO
Subsidies and financinggy g gy q p
and installation, including energy efficiency
retrofits, controls, HVAC, and building automation
Global
equipment
providers
ESCOs
Local HVAC,
electric cos.
Agency issues
Pricing of efficiency
Payback time, return
Smart appliances/
hardware
(incl facility/
Facility appliances and devices with modernized
electricity usage systems that monitor, protect, and
automatically adjust operations to the needs of its
Whirlpool
Honeywell
Carrier/
I E
Johnson
Controls
General
Electric
Clear interoperability standards
Technology maturity/lifecycles
Customer and equipment service
Copyright © 2011 by ScottMadden, Inc. All rights reserved.8
(incl. facility/
premise area
networking)
y j p
owner, including in response to price, utility
signals, and emergency power situations
Ice Energy
Microsoft
Electric “New normal” frugality
Transparent price signals;
supportive rate structures
Sources: Company websites; investment analyst reports; industry news; Cleantech Group, 2010 U.S. Smart Grid
Vendor Ecosystem (Sept. 2010); DOE Berkeley National Laboratory; ScottMadden analysis
10. Residential Utility Customer Satisfaction:
A Mixed Bag
W t d S th L d R id ti l El t i Utilit S ti f ti Customer Communication Helps ElectricsWest and South Lead Residential Electric Utility Satisfaction
750
king
Residential Electric Utility Average
J.D. Power Rating* by Region and Utility Size (2010)
Median Score High Low
Customer Communication Helps Electrics
According to J.D. Power, satisfaction levels have increased
year-over-year as customer bills have decreased and
reliability has improved
J.D. Power also found that managing customer
expectations around outages and restoration mitigates
550
600
650
700
rSat.IndexRank
expectations around outages and restoration mitigates
declines in or even improves satisfaction
To improve satisfaction, a mix of proactive and event
communiqués is required. For example:
─ More scheduled outage notifications with the rising
number and frequency of grid upgrade projects
500
West:
Midsize
West:
Large
South:
Midsize
South:
Large
Midwest:
Midsize
Midwest:
Large
East:
Midsize
East:
Large
Customer
number and frequency of grid upgrade projects
─ Announcements of reliability and operational
response investments and their results (benefits)
─ More frequent status updates, even with limited
information, during storm outages (e.g., radio or
mobile devices—texting, Facebook, Twitter, etc.)
Residential Gas Utility Average
J.D. Power Rating* by Region and Utility Size (2010)
Gas Utility Satisfaction Has a Narrower Range Than for Electrics
Helping customers with their overdue bills, as one might
expect, substantially improves customer satisfaction; utility
education and energy efficiency/management programs
are additional, helpful high bill resolution options
Customer awareness of their local utility’s implementation
of smart grid and smart meter technology remains low
600
650
700
750
ndexRanking
Median Score High Low
of smart grid and smart meter technology remains low
Satisfaction Improves for Gas Utilities
Lower bills, more frequent communication, and improved
perceptions of corporate citizenship have led to higher
satisfaction levels
500
550
600
West:
Large
West:
Midsize
South:
Large
South:
Midsize
Midwest:
Midsize
East:
Midsize
Midwest:
Large
East:
Large
CustomerSat.In
satisfaction levels
Gas customers are also more familiar with energy savings
programs and want more communication on how to reduce
bills and conserve energy
J.D. Power opines that emphasizing the value of service
provided by gas utilities lifts overall satisfaction
Copyright © 2011 by ScottMadden, Inc. All rights reserved.9
g g g g
Notes: *Scores are out of a possible 1,000 points
Source: J.D. Power and Associates, 2010 Gas Utility Residential Customer Satisfaction Survey (Sept. 22, 2010) and
2010 Electric Utility Residential Customer Satisfaction Survey (July 14, 2010); ScottMadden analysis
provided by gas utilities lifts overall satisfaction
12. Natural Gas:
A New Normal or About to Make the Turn?
“D ill B b D ill” P d i C i G G P i P j t d t R i i th Mid $4 t Mid $5 Th gh 2013“Drill, Baby, Drill”: Production Continues to Grow
Onshore gas production continues to grow despite
low gas prices and regulatory setbacks in
Marcellus
Rig count is expected by some to level off and
ltimatel decline to a tipping point of abo t 800 $8
$10
Natural Gas Week Scoreboard (Median)
Actual Wellhead Gas Prices vs. Henry Hub Price Projections
by Selected Analysts (in $/MMBTU)
Gas Prices Projected to Remain in the Mid-$4s to Mid-$5s Through 2013
ultimately decline to a tipping point of about 800
rigs (U.S.) to stabilize gas prices
However, horizontal gas drilling operations are
more efficient and productive, yielding more gas
per rig, so supply should be plentiful through 2012
$4.36 $4.45 $4.45
$4.72
$5.35 $5.35
$2
$4
$6
$8
$/MMBTU
NGW Scoreboard (High Forecast)
Wellhead actual prices
(average)
EIA Forecast:
2011: $4.02
For Producers, First the Bad News, Then…?
Enhanced revenues from rising natural gas liquids
prices have lowered the breakeven dry gas
production cost in some plays
Some producers looking to migrate from dry gas-
$0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Jan.-Oct.
2010
(Avg.)
2010 2011 2012
2011: $4.02
2012: $4.50
Some producers looking to migrate from dry gas
only plays like Haynesville and Barnett to places
like Eagle Ford and Marcellus
Some analysts project that gas prices will firm after
2012, buoyed by:
— Coal power plant retirements 100%1,200
Horizontal Rigs in January 2011 at 967, Up from Under 400 in Spring 2009
North American Rig Count by Type vs.
U.S. Gas Rigs as % of Total Rigs
— Carbon constraints
— Step-down in drilling activity as wells mature
— Hedges (i.e., forward sales) roll off
— Possible export (LNG) demand
20%
40%
60%
80%
200
400
600
800
1,000
U.S.GasRigs
as%ofTotalRig
NorthAmerican
RigCount
Demand and New Large Players
Demand remains suppressed, but is expected to
begin to firm with continued economic growth
Oil and gas majors are entering the market,
acquiring shale players who need a larger balance
0%
20%
0
200
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
s
gs
N
% Gas Rigs Directional Horizontal Vertical
Rig Count% of Total Rigs
Copyright © 2011 by ScottMadden, Inc. All rights reserved.11
acquiring shale players who need a larger balance
sheet and gaining experience to apply in shale
fields inside and outside North America
Sources: Energy Intelligence Natural Gas Week; Energy Information Administration; SNL Financial; Baker Hughes;
Deutsche Bank; American Gas Association; industry publications; ScottMadden analysis
Rig Count% of Total Rigs
13. Two Views of the Impact of EPA Regulations
on Power System Reliability in the U.S.
Much attention has been paid to the potential retirement of power generation in the U S as a result of various pendingMuch attention has been paid to the potential retirement of power generation in the U.S. as a result of various pending
EPA regulations covering air, water, and ash. Two recent studies looked at possible consequences for reliability.
A Comparison of Two Analyses of EPA Regulation
NERC (Oct. 2010) Charles River Associates (Dec. 2010)( ) ( )
Key Points
of Alignment
A significant portion of coal-fired generation is currently slated for retirement, even without tighter environmental regulations
Certain reliability sub-regions will be affected much more than others
The impact of greenhouse gas regulation is not included
Assessments did not project expected power cost, only retrofit vs. retire economics
Key Differences in
Looks at all EPA regulations – MACT, coal combustion Looks only at MACT and CATR
Key Differences in
Assumptions and
Approach
residuals, cooling water (thermal) constraints,
and Clean Air Transport Rule (CATR)
Analysis was national in scope
Limited its analysis to the Eastern Interconnection
Regulations impact 33 GW to 70 GW (retire or retrofit)
MACT alone could trigger retirement of 2 GW to 15 GW
Cooling water intake has the greatest impact on reserve
Under an aggressive MACT policy, CRA projects 35 GW of coal
capacity in the Eastern Interconnection to be retired by 2015
— Retirements are small compared with historical net
Conclusions
Cooling water intake has the greatest impact on reserve
margins, as it impacts nuclear and could force derates
By 2015, combined EPA regulations could cause 32+ GWs in
retirements and derates (over 77 GWs under a strict case with
no compliance extensions)
Under a moderate case and assuming only deliverable (i.e.,
existing plus planned) capacity:
Retirements are small compared with historical net
capacity additions
— Average age of those units is 55 years
With retirements, 2015 reserve margins fall below required
margins in some sub-regions, but are adequate on a regional
level
— Permitted projects development can reduce the shortfall
— ERCOT, ReliabilityFirst, and SERC-Delta, are most
affected by retirements (in total GWs)
— ERCOT, the Midwest, New England, and many of the
Southeastern subregions fall below target reserve margins
— New gas-fired capacity, above that currently permitted,
can “easily address” the shortfall (about 11.5 GWs)
Other methods can be used to manage shortfall, including:
— Load management
— Coal-to-gas conversion
Key issues and uncertainties:
How long cheap gas will last
Impact of better than expected electric demand
Availability and cost of gas pipeline extensions,
expansions to support new or repowered generation
R i d t d ti i f t i i h t
Leadership in the Republican-controlled 112th Congress has
announced strategies (or intent) to slow or moderate EPA
regulation via:
Appropriations: Limiting EPA funding on selected initiatives
Oversight: Conducting hearings on EPA activities before
Energy & Environment other Congressional committees
Copyright © 2011 by ScottMadden, Inc. All rights reserved.12
Required cost and timing of transmission enhancements
Realistic timing of new capacity resources “in the wings”
Cost of power with shift in resource mix
Sources: NERC, 2010 Special Reliability Scenario Assessment: Resource Adequacy Impacts of Potential U.S. Environmental Regulations (Oct. 2010);
Charles River Associates, A Reliability Assessment of EPA’s Proposed Transport Rule and Forthcoming Utility MACT (Dec. 16, 2010)
Energy & Environment, other Congressional committees
Legislation: Mandating delay on some EPA actions (esp.
greenhouse gas regulation)
15. Ad d E C bili i E bl d b S G id Industry leaders believe smart grid and the advanced
Smart Grid 2.0: Integrating Smart Grid Into Utility
System-Wide Business Planning
Utility scale renewables
Extended storage
Customer energy
efficiency/management
Current Applications Value
– Process / workforce efficiencies
– Operating savings
– Targeted event response
f (
Grid
Reliability
Smart
Energy
Applications
Advanced Energy Capabilities Enabled by Smart Grid Industry leaders believe smart grid and the advanced
energy capabilities it enables can significantly benefit
core utility value—reliability, efficiency/cost savings,
compliance, and customer service
Many utilities have developed business cases valuing
individual smart grid-enabled technologies (e.g., AMI,
Utility
Value
Billing accuracy
Faster issue resolution
Substation and DAI
GIS management
Advanced sensors
and system monitoring
Advanced conductors
Event detection
and response
Demand response
Ancillary services
Voltage mgt.
Condition-based
maintenance
Fast response
storage for regulation
efficiency/management
Dynamic rates
“Load as Capacity”
Distributed energy (DER)
and CHP
Small-scale renewables
Smart appliances and
EVs
Future Application Value
– Reduced field service trips (truck
rolls)
– Higher customer satisfaction
– Improved issues resolution
– Improved load planning
Customer
Services
Grid
Management
g g ( g
demand response, etc.)
To date, this narrow scope has limited utility planning,
acceptance, and investment in smart grid capability
Focus has been on engineering “proof of concept” pilots.
However, pilots do not clearly demonstrate the value of
Smart Grid Functionality
SCADA
AMR
Mobile dispatch
AMI (2-way)
Remote operations
(connect/disconnect)
OMS / system restoration
Faster issue resolution
Energy information, IHDs,
web analysis portals
Power quality services
Load profiling and
forecasting
Future Application Value
– Higher reliability
– Operate grid closer to “true” limits
– Early event detection and condition-
based response
– Grid congestion management
– T&D planning and IRP optimization
– Renewables integration
– Digital power quality
– Distributed resources/micro-grids
– Reduced cost/carbon footprint
Distribution
Operations
Event
Management
p y
larger (full) system deployments to the market
Utilities are now seeking a broader, comprehensive value
framework and planning approach to cohesively guide
this multi-year, multi-billion dollar, industry-wide system
capability investment, both on the utility and customer
sides of the meterSmart Grid Functionality
Advanced System
Capabilities
Enabled by
Key Utility System Business Models
Smart Enterprise “Value” Framework and Planning Approach
sides of the meter
Aligning Smart Grid Functionality With System Business Needs
in the Context of a Utility’s Market and Operations
Key QuestionsEnabled by
Smart Grid
Market
Model
Operating
Model
Customer
Model
Regulatory
Model
Distribution
Operations
y
e
Smart Grid Functionality
Distribution
Operations
Event
Management
Customer
Services
Grid
Management
Grid
Reliability
SCADA
AMR
Mobile dispatch
AMI (2-way)
Remoteoperations
(connect/disconnect)
OMS / system restoration
Billingaccuracy
Faster issue resolution
Energy information, IHDs,
web analysis portals
Power qualityservices
Loadprofilingand
forecasting
Substation and DAI
GIS management
Advanced sensors and
system monitoring
Advanced conductors
Event detectionand
management
Demand response
andancillary services
Voltagemanagement
Condition-based maint.
Fast response storage
forregulation
Smart
Energy
Applications
Utility scalerenewables
Extended storage
Customer energy
efficiency/management
Dynamic rates
“Load as Capacity”
Distributedenergy/CHP
Small-scalerenewables
Smart appliances
FutureApplication Value
– Higher reliability
– Operategridcloser to “true” limits
– Early event detectionand condition-
based response
– Gridcongestionmanagement
– T&Dplanning and IRP optimization
– Renewablesintegration
– Digital power quality
– Reduced cost/carbonfootprint for
supply
Current Applications Value
– Process/ workforce efficiencies
– Operating savings
– Targetedevent response
– Reducedfield servicetrips(truck
rolls)
– Higher customersatisfaction
– Improvedissuesresolution
– Improvedload planning
Related
Regulatory
Key Questions
What are key market, operating, and customer value drivers or
“sign posts” to monitor?
How do drivers impact a utility’s key business models and
metrics (e.g., market, operating, customer, regulatory)?
Event
Management
Customer
Services
Grid
Management
G id
Reliability
Compliance
Costs
Identify
• Business model impacts?
• “Core” value benefits?
g y
Compact Impacts
• ”Used and
useful” criteria
• Ratebase
requirements
• Ratemaking
and cost-of-
service
methodologies
• New rate
What are achievable opportunities to “operationalize” smart
grid’s value today and in the future?
Are clear, long-term system core values demonstrated to
ratepayers, regulators, and stakeholders?
What are our business plans—market, operating, customer, and
Copyright © 2011 by ScottMadden, Inc. All rights reserved.14
Grid
Reliability
Smart Energy
Customer
Service
mechanisms
• Regulatory
engagement
• Other
p , p g, ,
regulatory—and supporting smart grid strategy/infrastructure
“roadmap” for moving ahead, managing related enterprise risk,
and gaining regulatory, community, and stakeholder support?
Source: ScottMadden analysis
16. NERC Reliability Standards
and Compliance Violations: A Roundup
C iti l I f t t P t tiTh W t U S L d Oth R gi i C li P lti
Cumulative NERC Compliance Penalties
(No. of Assessments)* by Topic Area
(June 2008–December 2010)
Cumulative NERC Violations and
Monetary Penalties* by NERC Region
(June 2008–December 2010)
Critical Infrastructure Protection
Has Been Oft-Cited
The Western U.S. Leads Other Regions in Compliance Penalties
in Part Due to the Number of Registered Entities
104
107
107
267
381
428
Transmission Planning
Transmission Operations
Emergency Preparedness and Ops.
Facilities Design, Connections, and Maint.
Critical Infrastructure Protection
Protection and Control
600
700
800
900
1000
$1 500 000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
No.ofAssessm
nalties($)
Penalties ($)
Penalties (No. of
Assessments)
15
34
41
44
99
104
Communications
Resource and Demand Balancing
Interconn. Reliability Ops. and Coord.
Personnel Perf., Training, and Quals.
Voltage and Reactive
Transmission Planning
200
300
400
500
600
$500 000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
ments(vs.Requirem
TotalMonetaryPen
11
12
15
0 100 200 300 400 500
Interchange Scheduling and Coord.
Modeling, Data, and Analysis
0
100
200
$0
$500,000
WECC SERC RFC NPCC FRCC MRO TRE SPP
ments)
T
Note: Includes violations that did not
include financial penalties
NERC and FERC have been trying to address friction as FERC seeks more timely standards development and
aggressive enforcement (i.e., more significant penalties) of key focus areas like critical infrastructure protection
FERC, in reviewing NERC’s self-assessment of performance, had specific concerns about NERC’s reliability
standards development process, specifically improving certain standards and their pace of development
A FERC’ i i NERC h d f h d d d l At FERC’s insistence, NERC has now proposed a revamp of the standards development process
Only time will tell how these changes will affect registered entities and the regional reliability organizations
In addition to evolving standards, the industry is contending with alerts from NERC that may require swift and
costly modifications to equipment and operating processes
Copyright © 2011 by ScottMadden, Inc. All rights reserved.15
Notes: *Excludes FP&L’s $25 million settlement in October 2009. NERC violation count based upon
each requirement violation.
Sources: NERC (as of Jan. 15, 2011); SNL Financial; ScottMadden analysis
18. Electricity Cost Trends, Fuel Mix,
and Regulatory and Market Models
C d A l G th R t i T t l R t il R kWh (1994 2009)
10
15
20
25
2%
3%
4%
5%
Avg.Revenue
hRate(%)
Chart Title
Growth Rate Median Growth Rate 2009 Avg. Revenue (¢/kWh)
Compound Annual Growth Rate in Total Retail Revenues per kWh (1994–2009)
and 2009 Average Revenues per kWh
0
5
10
0%
1%
2%
AK
AL
AR
AZ
CA
CO
CT
DC
DE
FL
GA
HI
IA
ID
IL
IN
KS
KY
LA
MA
MD
ME
MI
MN
MO
MS
MT
NC
ND
NE
NH
NJ
NM
NV
NY
OH
OK
OR
PA
RI
SC
SD
TN
TX
UT
VA
VT
WA
WI
WV
WY
(Cents/kWh)
Growth
AK AL AR AZ CA CO CT DC DE FL GA HI IA ID IL IN KS KY LA MA MD ME MI MNMO MS MT NC ND NE NH NJ NM NV NY OH OK OR PA RI SC SD TN TX UT VA VT WA WI WV WY
Part
of RTO
100%
pe
of RTO
Restructured
Retail
RRA PUC
Ranking
25%
50%
75%
enerationbyFuelTyp
0%
25%
NetGe
Coal Hydro Natural Gas Nuclear Renewable Other
The link between growth in revenues per kWh of electricity and
Legend
Part of RTO: Full or most | Part | None or insubstantial
Restructured Retail: Full choice | Partial choice
RRA PUC Ranking: Above average (constructive) | Average | Below Average
The link between growth in revenues per kWh of electricity and
regulatory model is uncertain at best
Fuel mix has a bearing, especially where coal (historically cheaper)
or gas (historically more expensive) is a significant part of the mix
Interestingly, while revenues per kWh (rates) predominantly coal-
fired jurisdictions remain relatively low for many their growth hasS E I f ti Ad i i t ti ISO/RTO C il C t C liti
Copyright © 2011 by ScottMadden, Inc. All rights reserved.17
fired jurisdictions remain relatively low, for many their growth has
been above median
Some lower cost jurisdictions—Alabama, Tennessee, Oregon, and
Washington—have increased the most over the past 15 years
Sources: Energy Information Administration; ISO/RTO Council; Compete Coalition;
SNL Financial/Regulatory Research Associates; Distributed Energy Financial Group,
Annual Baseline Assessment of Choice in Canada and the United States: An
Assessment of Restructured Electricity Markets (Dec. 2010); ScottMadden analysis
19. Energy Costs and “Share of Wallet”:
A Pushback Coming?
E C t P t f I A Ri i NTh T t Y T d f H h ld E
Share of Wallet: Median Energy Costs as a % of
Median Household Income (Nominal $)*
4%500
( )
Average Annual Electricity Rates vs.
Other Cost Measures (1990–2009) (Index: 1990=100)
Energy Costs as a Percentage of Income Are Rising Now,
a Trend Exacerbated by a Decline in Household Income in 2009
The Twenty-Year Trend for Household Energy
Is in Keeping With Key Price Indexes
.0%
%
%
%
%
2.3%
2.6%
%
%
%
%
.0%
%
2.1%
2.2%
2.6%
3.1%
3.2%
2%300
400
xValue
Electric Rates (All Classes Avg.)
Natural Gas Prices (Henry Hub Avg.)
Producer Price Index (Less Food and Energy)
Consumer Price Index
2.
1.8
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.3%
1.2%
1.6%
1.4%
1.7%
1.6%
1.8
2
1.7%
2
2
0%
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009
Electricity Piped Gas Fuel Oil
0
100
200
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Inde
y p
Energy Costs Take a Larger Bite Out of Households
While household energy costs have kept pace with
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Share of Wallet: 2009 Median Energy Costs as a % of
Regional Variations for Energy Costs In Comparison
with Median Income Levels Can Be Significant
gy p p
key inflation indices over the last two decades, “share
of wallet” is increasing now
— Piped natural gas expenses, as a percent of
income, have increased since the late 1990s
— Electricity costs, which fell in the early 2000s,
have increased rapidly since mid decade rising
Median Household Income (Nominal $)*
3.6%
3.5%
%
4%
have increased rapidly since mid-decade, rising
from 1.7% of income to 2.6% in four years
There are differences by region in household energy
“share of wallet”
A tipping point is possible as stagnant incomes,
coupled with increasing costs squeeze households
2.1%
2.3%
1.9%
2.4%
2.2%
1.8%
1.2%
2.5%
2.6%
2.2%
0%
2%
Copyright © 2011 by ScottMadden, Inc. All rights reserved.18
Notes: *Energy costs are for those households consuming this fuel type; median income is for all households
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Household Survey; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics;
Energy Information Administration; ScottMadden analysis
coupled with increasing costs, squeeze households
This could mean lower consumption, fewer rate case
filings and less favorable ratemaking mechanisms
Northeast Midwest South West
Electricity Piped Gas Fuel Oil
21. Renewable Portfolio Standards:
Comparing Resources with Goals
50%
60%
Renewable Portfolio Standards for 2012 and 2020 (% of MWhs) vs.
2008 Renewable Generation as % of Total Generation (% of MWhs) by State
ID: 84.5% OR: 63.4% WA: 74.5%Renewable Generation as %
of Total Net Generation
40%
50%
TX Renewable Target:
• 2013: 5,256 MW
• 2025: 10,000 MW
• 2008 (Actual): 8,380 MW
2020 RPS target
(small square indicates
no 2012 target)
2012 RPS target
20%
30%
0%
10%
AL
AK
AZ
AR
CA
CO
CT
DC
DE
FL
GA
HI
ID
IL
IN
IA
KS
KY
LA
ME
MD
MA
MI
MN
MS
MO
MT
NE
NV
NH
NJ
NM
NY
NC
ND
OH
OK
OR
PA
RI
SC
SD
TN
TX
UT
VT
VA
WA
WV
WI
WY
As the first target dates under various state renewable portfolio standards approach, states are positioned differently
States with a large portion of their energy mix from large hydro (e.g., the Pacific Northwest, New York, Maine, Vermont) are well
positioned However dependence upon these resources make hydrologic conditions a crucial variable in whether the standardspositioned. However, dependence upon these resources make hydrologic conditions a crucial variable in whether the standards
can be consistently met
Some states—Delaware, DC, Illinois, and Pennsylvania, for example—have a significant gap to overcome to achieve their 2012
renewable generation targets
Others with 2020 time frame targets have a similar gap but some time to put resources into place
Copyright © 2011 by ScottMadden, Inc. All rights reserved.20
Sources: U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), State Renewable Electricity Profiles 2008 (Aug. 2010), at
http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/state_profiles/r_profiles_sum.html; EIA, State Electricity Profiles
2008 (Mar. 2010), accessed at http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/e_profiles_sum.html;
Database of State Incentives for Renewable Energy
22. Energy and Environmental Policy:
A Grand Bargain or Guerilla War on the Piece Parts?
Anticipated
White House/
Agency
Approach
New
Congressional
Environment
Possible
Wild
Cards
The Bottom Line
Proposed boiler MACT House oversight hearings Results of and reactions to Compliance may
EPA
Conventional
Emissions
p
rules in Q1 2011, finalize
by Mar. 2012
Final Transport rule in
2011
Some delays requested
(e g biomass MACT)
g g
likely
Potential limitation on EPA
spending
“listening” meetings
Obama regulatory review
Judicial action in response
to EPA-sought delays and
environmental organization
challenges thereto
p y
be deferred out of
concerns on impact
on U.S. economy
But environmental
intervenors may
force continued
Regulations
(e.g., biomass MACT) challenges thereto
EPA action
No reversal of
standards in next
two years
“Clean” energy standard
expanded to include some
Some bipartisan support in
Senate for clean energy
Deficit concerns on
additional funding
Some R&D funding
Clean Energy
expanded to include some
types of non-renewable
generation
Continued investment in
R&D
Government-driven green
t
Senate for clean energy
standard (with nuclear)
No strong advocate in
House
additional funding Clean or renewable
energy standard
less likely given
opposition to
nuclear by the
environmental
lobbyenergy procurement lobby
Regulation Of
G h
No cap-and-trade
legislation pushed
EPA pushing tighter
standards on new sources
and implementation plans,
No cap-and-trade
legislation
House oversight hearings,
potential limitation on EPA
spending on GHG
Carbon tax may be viable
with deficit hawks, but
industry will oppose
increased customer cost
Supreme Court decision
No legislative
approach, but EPA
pushes on
(inventory baseline)
Possible House
Greenhouse
Gas Emissions
and implementation plans,
BACT on existing
generators
spending on GHG
regulation
Supreme Court decision
on GHG emissions tort vs.
EPA regulatory pre-
emption
Outcome of state lawsuits
challenging GHG BACT
Possible House
inquiry into climate
science
U.N. non-binding
targets
I d th it f C ll t f t D fi it i A h ll t t
Copyright © 2011 by ScottMadden, Inc. All rights reserved.21
Nuclear
Development
Increased authority for
guarantees for new plants
Call to reform guarantee
program, reduce role of
OMB
Deficit concerns: increase
may not be budget-neutral
A challenge to get
additional funding,
guarantees
Sources: Van Ness Feldman; K&L Gates; Alston & Bird; SNL Financial; industry news; Senate, House committee
websites; ScottMadden analysis
23. Solar Development Remains on a Roll,
But It Still Requires Subsidies
Solar development continued to grow in 2010 I ti d T C dit C t N t I t ll d C i l PV C t i H lf
Installed Cost of Commercial PV (>10 kW / All Technologies)
Over Time ($/WattDC)
Solar development continued to grow in 2010,
well above the 2009 pace
— Solar PV installations totaled 525
MWs through 3rd Quarter 2010, up 1/5
vs. 2009
— One projection has U S solar capacity
Incentives and Tax Credits Cut Net Installed Commercial PV Costs in Half
$12.00
$10.59
$9 59 $9 89$12
$16
d
DC)
— One projection has U.S. solar capacity
reaching 44 GWs by 2020, requiring
$100 billion in investment
Solar costs have been decreasing with scale
economies and expanded manufacturing
capacity
$
$8.93 $9.59 $9.89
$8.83 $8.45 $8.02 $7.81 $8.10 $7.95 $7.95
$0
$4
$8
$12
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Installed
Cost($/WD
— Global PV panel capacity is projected
to grow to 30 GWs by 2013 from 10.1
GWs in 2009
— Producers are mobilizing—e.g., GE is
prioritizing solar business growth
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Net Installed Cost with ITC State/Utility Cash Incentive (After‐Tax) ITC (State and/or Federal)
U.S. Utility-Scale ( 100 kW) Solar Projects (in MWs)
by Operating Date
— European manufacturers are expected
to look abroad as European subsidies
(especially feed-in tariffs) are reduced
amidst fiscal austerity
The U.S. market is still dependent upon
favorable state policy and development is 400
s
Solar PV Installations Helped by Grants and Reduced Equipment (Module) Cost
favorable state policy and development is
concentrated in a handful of states
— The top five states—CA, FL, NJ, AZ,
and PA—account for 76% of large
(>100 kW) solar PV installations since
2000 0
100
200
300
InstalledMWs
— Policy support is still necessary:
CA, for example, allows up to 5%
aggregate net metering and providing
$3 billion for “Go Solar” subsidies
Asian growth will fuel increased activity and
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Solar PV Concentrating Solar
Copyright © 2011 by ScottMadden, Inc. All rights reserved.22
Sources: Solar Industry magazine; Renew Grid magazine; SNL Financial; The New York Times; The Wall Street Journal;
Bloomberg New Energy Finance; Energy Acuity; G. Barbose, N. Darghouth & R. Wiser, Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory, Tracking the Sun III: The Installed Cost of Photovoltaics in the U.S. from 1998-2009 (Dec. 2010);
Greentech Media, U.S. Solar Energy Trade Assessment 2010 (Nov. 2010), prepared for Solar Energy Industries
Association
pull equipment abroad: China is targeting 20
GWs of installed solar by 2020; India’s goal is
1 GW by 2013
24. Energy industry landscape: sharpening contrasts and accelerating change
Every day in this challenging and exciting environment, experienced ScottMadden
consultants offer our clients deep energy knowledge and practical business acumen,
collaborate with them, and help them succeed.
We have done this for more than 25 years, served more than 200 energy organizations—
including 90% of the top 20—and completed thousands of projects. We have worked with
the best in the industry and can help you succeed Meet with us for industry leading practicesthe best in the industry and can help you succeed. Meet with us for industry‐leading practices
and management insights.
Generation • Transmission • Delivery • Smart Grid • Markets • Utilities • Regulation • Gas
“They are practical;
AN EXCEPTIONAL CONSULTING EXPERIENCE
y p ;
we can put their
recommendations
into play right away.”
Industry Executive
AN EXCEPTIONAL CONSULTING EXPERIENCE
scottmadden.com
Copyright © 2011 by ScottMadden, Inc. All rights reserved.
25. Recent ScottMadden Insights—Available at ScottMadden.com
Fossil
Generation
Coal Combustion Residuals, by J. Jacobi,
http://www.scottmadden.com/insight/410/Coal-Combustion-Residuals.html
Coal Plant Shutdown—A Case Study: Why? How?, by S. Pearman & G. Robinson,
http://www.scottmadden.com/insight/409/Coal-Plant-Shutdown-A-Case-Study-Why-How.html
Natural Gas Infrastructure Investment in the Gas Industry, by E. Baker & J. Davis,
http://www.scottmadden.com/insight/354/Infrastructure-Investment-in-the-Gas-Industry.html
Renewables Biomass: Electricity Generation and Transportation Fuel, by J. Jacobi,
http://www.scottmadden.com/insight/408/Biomass-Electricity-Generation-and-Transportation-Fuel.html
Solar Photovoltaic Plant Operating and Maintenance Costs, by J. Jacobi & R. Starkweather,
http://www.scottmadden.com/insight/407/Solar-Photovoltaic-Plant-Operating-and-Maintenance-Costs.html
Resource and
Supply Planning
Resource Planning—Confronting Challenges and Managing Uncertainties, by R. McAdams &
J. Davis, http://www.scottmadden.com/insight/405/Resource-Planning-Confronting-Challenges-and-Managing-
Uncertainties htmlUncertainties.html
Energy
Efficiency
Improvements in Data Center Management, by J. Jacobi, J. Kerner, & Scott Wilson,
http://www.scottmadden.com/insight/412/Improvements-in-Data-Center-Management.html
Energy
T h l i
Storage Applications: Where Is the Value—Now and in the Future?, by J. Jacobi,& Scott Wilson,
http://www scottmadden com/insight/403/Storage Applications Where Is the Value Now and in the Future htmlTechnologies http://www.scottmadden.com/insight/403/Storage-Applications-Where-Is-the-Value-Now-and-in-the-Future.html
Nuclear
Generation
Improving Nuclear Maintenance Productivity—Insights from ANS, by C. Vlahoplus, published in Nuclear News,
http://www.scottmadden.com/insight/424/Improving-Nuclear-Maintenance-Productivity-Insights-from-ANS.html
Nuclear New Build, by E. Baker,
http://www.scottmadden.com/insight/411/Nuclear-New-Build.html
Using Benchmarks in Gap-Based Business Planning, by J. Sequeira, I. Falk, & C. Carmichael, published in Nuclear
Power International, http://www.scottmadden.com/insight/425/Using-Benchmarks-in-Gapbased-Business-Planning.html
Financial
Shared Services
ScottMadden and APQC Article Series: Financial Shared Services, by B. DeMent & J. Davis,
http://www.scottmadden.com/insight/423/ScottMadden-and-APQC-Article-Series-Financial-Shared-Services.html
Copyright © 2011 by ScottMadden, Inc. All rights reserved.
26. Energy Practice
The energy industry landscape is one of sharpening
Research
ScottMadden Research provides clients with valuablegy y p p g
contrasts and accelerating change. The shelf life for
conventional wisdom seems to grow shorter with each
headline. Every day in this challenging and exciting
environment, experienced ScottMadden consultants offer
our clients deep energy knowledge and practical business
p
insight on developments, trends, and practices in energy
and sustainability. Through its semi-annual Energy
Industry Update and other occasional publications, our
research team helps clients discern and analyze critical
issues and inform their business decisions.
acumen, collaborate with them, and help them succeed.
We have done this for more than 25 years, served more
than 150 energy organizations, and completed thousands
of successful projects. We have helped some of the best
in the business in nuclear and fossil generation
We also provide customized, project-based research and
analytical support on matters of interest to our clients.
For more information about our research capabilities or
content see the Insights section of our website orin the business in nuclear and fossil generation,
renewables, transmission, distribution, gas, regulatory,
and a host of other areas.
For more information about our Energy Practice, contact:
content, see the Insights section of our website or
contact:
Brad Kitchens
President
sbkitchens@scottmadden.com
Stu Pearman
Partner and Energy Practice Leader
spearman@scottmadden.com
919.781.4191
sbkitchens@scottmadden.com
404.814.0020
Stu Pearman
Partner and Energy Practice Leader
spearman@scottmadden.com
919.781.4191
Jere “Jake” Jacobi
Partner and Sustainability Practice Leader
jjacobi@scottmadden.com
404 814 0020404.814.0020
Greg Litra
Director of Research
glitra@scottmadden.com
919 781 4191
scottmadden.com
919.781.4191
Copyright © 2011 by ScottMadden, Inc. All rights reserved.