Sector Business Model Overview. MISO Advisory Committee Meeting

Transcription

1 Independent Power Producer ( IPP ) Sector Business Model Overview MISO Advisory Committee Meeting December 12, 2012

2 Regulatory Perspective Background Prior to the Public Utility Regulatory Act (PURPA) of 1978, Non-Utility Generators or NUGs ( NUGs ) were rare, and the few that existed were seldom able to distribute power, as the cost of building the conveyance infrastructure was prohibitive. Congress Passed the PURPA in 1978, establishing a class of NUGs, called Qualifying Facilities (QF), which were permitted to produce power for resale. Section 210 of PURPA now requires utilities to purchase energy from NUGs which qualify (Qualifying Facilities) at the utility's avoided cost. This allows NUGs to receive a reasonable price for the energy they produce and ensures that energy generated by small producers will not be wasted. In 1996, FERC issued Order No. 888 containing the pro-forma Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT). The OATT required that transmission owners provide open, non-discriminatory access on their transmission i system to transmission i customers. Independent transmission providers such as Independent System Operators (ISOs) were formed and Regional Transmission Organizations (RTOs) came into being as a result of FERC Order No

3 Traditional IPPs The Rise and Fall From the late 1990 s to early 2000 s, there was a boom in construction of new power plants by IPPs driven by the following two factors: After a decade d of virtually no new construction, there was a need for significant new generating capacity. Utilities were being required to divest massive amounts of generating assets. Between the IPPs abruptly stopped constructing new facilities as a result of the California energy crisis, and the financial crisis and the recession that followed the terrorist attacks on September 11, The halt in further deregulation by regulated states was in large part a reaction to the California energy crisis. From that point forward, the market penetration by independent power producers remained static due to basic laws of economics - Market prices have not justified new construction. Market prices have discounted the costs of new construction between 40% to 50%, which is why you saw the secondary sales of relatively new power plants in the period 2003 to 2004 going at 30% to 40% of construction costs and edged up toward the 40% to 50% range. Big reserve margins and excess capacity in many yparts of the country made it difficult for projects to retain their full value. Tens of billions of dollars have been lost through a series of well-known bankruptcies. Remaining IPPs are engaged in consolidation and cost reduction rather than robustly looking to grow. 3

4 What about Wind? Average annual wind growth for the U.S. over the past five years was 35% - 51,630 MW installed through the end of September IPPs currently own the majority of the wind generation, however trending toward increasing utility ownership of wind power (25% of all new wind power capacity owned by utilities in 2011 up from 15% in previous years) Majority of installed wind is contracted t under long-term power purchase agreements; however, a growing portion of installed capacity is sold on the short-term or spot market. Strong renewable electricity standards/goals in the MISO states coupled with the federal energy production tax credit (PTC) or investment tax credit (ITC) have driven demand The PTC is set to expire at the end of 2012 failure to extend will result in a significant roll back in construction of wind facilities Anticipate significant slow down in new IPP wind build in MISO footprint due to current oversupply, uncertainty associated with extension of PTC, and slow-down in long-term, utility competitive procurements for wind 4

5 Basic Business Model Provide wholesale energy, capacity and ancillary services to energy markets (including utilities, cooperatives, municipals and other energy companies) For-profit publicly traded or privately held Do not have certified franchise service territories with an obligation to serve retail end-use customers no captive rate base Stockholders and bond holders bear 100% of the business risk Own and operate diversified mix generating gassets - coal, natural gas, nuclear, fuel oil, and wind Provide products and services under bilateral contracts and tolling agreements Contribute to local economies just like the vertically integrated utilities by paying property and state & local payroll taxes Actively participate in all organized markets across the country 5

6 Benefits to Consumers Promotes power supply competition and price transparency that results in lower costs and added d value for consumers Benefits are realized without cost obligations associated with including ggeneration assets in state jurisdictional rate base. IPPs add liquidity and price convergence between Day-Ahead and Real-Time Markets through their market participation, including taking FTR positions to hedge asset positions. Geographic diversity of generation portfolio capitalizes on regional differences in power prices and weather driven demand IPPs provide an important voice in MISO stakeholder forums ensure balance of interests being heard/represented 6

7 Challenges in MISO Footprint 90% of the MISO footprint is served by traditional, vertically integrated utilities that rely on the Integrated Resource Planning model for planning and procuring/building assets Only Illinois and Michigan have forms of retail competition. The traditionally regulated environment in MISO create a high barrier to entry for the competitive generation sector. Currently there is no free market for procurement of energy and capacity resources. Competitive procurement rules vary by state State legislative solutions needed to require competitive procurement of new generation outside a market-based mechanism Lack of a robust mandatory forward capacity market is the primary challenge facing the traditional generators in IPP sector New generation interconnection queue process has the potential to create insurmountable hurdle for new, project-financed IPP generation 7

8 Strategic Goals The Ideal World Mission Work to maintain and/or develop an independent, transparent, non-discriminatory, i i fully robust, competitive i wholesale l energy, capacity and ancillary service markets 8 Competitive Procurement Through h robust energy, capacity, and ancillary services markets or through independent, binding request for proposal processes Level Playing Field Ensuring MISO maintains independence to protect IPPs from unintended consequences of undue influence by individual stakeholder groups Participate in MISO process to safeguard against changes to market rules or the implementation i of new rules that would be unfair and/or unduly discriminatory to the sector s resources Efficient Market -Timely elimination of identified market deficiencies and prioritizing, high impact market enhancements that will increase value for the IPPs

9 IPP Membership in MISO Beacon Power Corporation Benton County Wind Farm, LLC Calpine Energy Services, L.P. Clipper Windpower Development Company, Inc. Dominion Energy Marketing, Inc. Duke Energy Commercial Asset Management, Inc. Dynegy Power Marketing, LLC Edison Mission Marketing & Trading, Inc. enxco Development Corporation Entergy Nuclear Power Marketing, LLC E.ON Climate & Renewables North America, LLC Eurus Energy America LLC Gamesa Energy USA LLC GenOn Energy Management, LLC Geronimo Wind Energy, LLC Horizon Wind Energy, LLC Iberdrola Renewables, LLC Invenergy Energy Management LLC LS Power Associates, L.P. NextEra Energy Power Marketing LLC North America Power Partners, LLC NRG Power Marketing, LLC Peabody Energy Corporation Prairie State Generating Company LLC RES America Developments Inc. RRI Energy Services, LLC Springfield Project Development LLC 9