Stanford Study Calls for 100 Percent Renewables by 2050 - Megawatt Daily

www.platts.com

[ELECTRIC POWER ]

Thursday, June 18, 2015

MEGAWATT DAILYwww.twitter.com/plattspower

Inside this Issue Firms detail REITs, YieldCos for transmission 12 Plea for more CFTC funding falls flat in House bill 13 Texas bills tie wind, solar to desalination projects 13 Florida utilities slam voter initiative on solar 14 PJM reforms wont save Illinois nukes: Exelon 15 NYISO eyes distributed resources for future grid 16

Low and high average day-ahead LMP for Jun 18 ($/MWh) On-peak low On-peak high Off-peak low Off-peak high

ISONE 22.29 22.92 14.20 14.34NYISO 20.08 30.71 11.18 15.32PJM 28.09 60.09 16.65 24.73MISO 24.35 36.52 12.95 23.27ERCOT 29.17 33.53 19.49 19.64SPP 28.72 30.41 16.30 20.22CAISO 36.64 38.69 29.01 29.84

Note: Lows and highs for each ISO are for various hubs and zones. A full listing of average LMPs are available for the hubs and zones inside this issue.

Day-ahead bilateral indexes and spark spreads for Jun 18 Marginal Spark spreads Index heat rate @7k @8k @10k @12k @15k

SoutheastSouthern, Into 40.75 13837 20.14 17.19 11.30 5.41 -3.43Florida 41.50 12170 17.63 14.22 7.40 0.58 -9.65

NorthwestMid-C 37.73 14456 19.46 16.85 11.63 6.41 -1.42COB 39.93 13962 19.91 17.05 11.33 5.61 -2.97

SouthwestPalo Verde 41.79 14510 21.63 18.75 12.99 7.23 -1.41Mead 45.25 15313 24.57 21.61 15.70 9.79 0.93

Note: All indexes are on-peak. Spark spreads are reported in ($) and Marginal heat rates in (Btu/kWh). A full listing of bilateral indexes and marginal heat rates are inside this issue.

Price trends at key trading points ($/MWh)

Source: Platts

0

20

40

60

80

18-Jun12-Jun06-Jun31-May25-May19-May

SP15ERCOT NorthIndiana HubPJM WestISONE Hub

Wholesale power sellers increased their reported sales by approximately 4.3% in the first quarter of 2015

compared to the year before, with about 3% of that increase the result of Southwest Power Pool filing changes and the remainder reflecting real growth in sales.

Total projected sales in the quarter reached 1.228 billion MWh, according to data filed by 548 power generators and trading and marketing firms within electric quarterly reports to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The data was compiled by Platts.

The top wholesale power seller in the country for the 11th consecutive quarter was Exelon Generation & Affiliates, which reported over 103 million MWh sold, giving it an 8.6% share of the entire sales and trading market. Exelons sales in the first

Exelon, NRG top wholesale power trading ranks

(continued on page 19)

A new Stanford University study of how all 50 states could meet all energy needs from renewable sources by

2050 has drawn reactions ranging from derision to respect from a variety of experts and stakeholders.

Entitled 100% clean and renewable wind, water and sunlight (WWS) all-sector energy roadmaps for the 50 United States, the study concludes that wind power could supply half the nations energy needs, about 31% from onshore wind and about 19% from offshore wind.

Energy, in this study, includes transportation and heating, as well as power. As much as possible, all devices would be converted to electricity, and devices that require combustion would burn hydrogen produced by hydrolysis.

100% renewables study draws jokes, respect

Federal regulators Tuesday denied a complaint by Public Service Electric and Gas over a competitive

transmission solicitation process in PJM Interconnection, with one commissioner highlighting the key role that competitive transmission can play going forward.

Specifically, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission found that PJM complied with its commission-approved rules in conducting the solicitation to address operational issues around Artificial Island, an area of southern New Jersey that is home to PSE&G and Exelons 2,365-MW Salem nuclear power plant and PSE&Gs 1,178-MW Hope Creek nuclear power plant. FERC also found that PJM was not required to use its Order 1000-compliant procedures in conducting the solicitation as PSEG had argued.

Were clearly disappointed, PSE&G spokesman Kate Vossen

FERC denies Artificial Island complaint


FERC

MARKETS

ANALYSIS


Thursday, June 18, 2015MegawaTT daily

2 Copyright 2015 McGraw Hill Financial

Northeast load and generation mix forecast (GWh) Actual % Chg Forecast 16-Jun %Chg Year-ago 17-Jun 18-Jun 19-Jun 20-Jun 21-Jun

ISONE

Load 347 2 0 360 345 341 309 320GenerationCoal 9 -10 12 10 9 8 7 9Gas 162 10 12 169 166 165 153 158Nuclear 98 0 -7 98 98 98 98 98

NYISO

Load 484 -1 1 485 452 439 389 430GenerationCoal 13 1 -8 13 12 10 9 10Gas 195 5 21 192 174 167 156 183Nuclear 110 -18 6 135 135 135 135 135

Source: Bentek

Northeast spot natural gas prices ($/MMBtu)

Source: Platts

1

2

3

4


Iroquois zone 2 Transco zone 6 N.Y. Algonquin city-gates

ISONE & NYISO gas and coal generation (GWh)

Source: Bentek

0

100

200

300

400

17-Jun2-Jun18-May3-May18-Apr3-Apr19-Mar

Coal Gas

NoRThEAST MARKETS

Mass hub drops with load, spot gasNortheast dailies were down Wednesday with weakening

demand and pullback in spot gas markets.Mass Hub day-ahead on-peak futures lost around $2.50 going

to the mid-$20s/MWh for Thursday delivery on the Intercontinental Exchange.

Algonquin Gas Transmission city-gates spot gas lost 3 cents going down to about $2.04/MMBtu on ICE for Thursday flow.

The ISO New England predicted peak demand on Wednesday at about 16,690 MW, more than 100 MW higher than the previous day. Thursdays peakload was forecast at 16,210 MW.

High temperatures in Boston Thursday were forecast in the low 70s.

In New York state, day-ahead on-peak LMP average prices continued to fall Wednesday with further weakening of demand and spot gas prices.

New York ISO Zone G Hudson Valley day-ahead on-peak locational marginal prices tumbled nearly $8 going down to about $26.75/MWh for Thursday. Zone J New York City on-peak fell $9 to below $27.50/MWh.

New York Zone A West on-peak eased more than $2 to about $26.25/MWh.

Transco Zone 6 New York spot natural gas came down more than 10 cents to about $2.91/MMBtu on ICE for Thursday delivery.

The New York ISO predicted peak demand on Wednesday at about 22,008 MW, down about 1,400 MW from the previous days peak. Thursdays demand was predicted to peak at 21,423 MW.

High temperatures across New York state Thursday were predicted to be in the mid-70s to low 80s.

Northeast term power prices dropped Wednesday with some weakness in the NYMEX gas futures prices.

In New England, Mass Hub on-peak July was off $1.50 moving down to about $39.50/MWh on ICE around 2:30 pm EDT.

In New York, Zone G on-peak July fell $1.75 to $45.25/MWh. Zone A on-peak July dropped $1.75 to $44/MWh.

NYMEX July gas futures came down 3.9 cents to $2.855/MMBtu. Algonquin July financial basis eased 9 cents to negative 53 cents/MMBtu, and Transco Zone-6 New York July basis widened out by about 9 cents to negative 68 cents/MMBtu.



ISoNE day-ahead LMP for Jun 18 ($/MWh) Avg MarginalHub/Zone Average Cong Loss Change $/Mo heat rate

On-peak

Internal Hub 22.71 0.00 -0.07 -4.18 23.91 11038Connecticut 22.88 0.00 0.10 -4.40 25.38 9249NE Mass-Boston 22.88 0.00 0.10 -4.13 24.27 11123SE Mass 22.52 0.00 -0.26 -4.05 23.78 10945West-Central Mass 22.83 0.00 0.05 -4.23 24.01 11095Rhode Island 22.29 0.00 -0.49 -4.09 23.58 10835Maine 22.78 0.00 0.00 -4.03 23.58 7835New Hampshire 22.92 0.00 0.14 -4.11 23.89 7883Vermont 22.63 -0.19 0.03 -4.29 23.66 7782

Off-Peak

Internal Hub 14.27 0.00 -0.04 -2.39 14.38 6865Connecticut 14.30 0.00 -0.01 -2.44 14.57 5645NE Mass-Boston 14.34 0.00 0.03 -2.36 14.41 6897SE Mass 14.33 0.00 0.02 -2.42 14.43 6893West-Central Mass 14.32 0.00 0.01 -2.39 14.42 6887Rhode Island 14.33 0.00 0.02 -2.80 14.63 6892Maine 14.20 0.00 -0.11 -1.29 14.02 4859New Hampshire 14.25 0.00 -0.06 -2.29 14.24 4874Vermont 14.34 0.00 0.03 -2.41 14.33 4907

NYISo day-ahead LMP for Jun 18 ($/MWh) Avg MarginalHub/Zone Average Cong Loss Change $/Mo heat rate

On-peak

Capital Zone 22.41 0.28 1.18 -3.86 23.73 9420Central Zone 22.67 -0.57 0.59 -3.59 23.78 11470Dunwoodie Zone 27.20 -3.02 2.67 -8.66 29.21 9632Genesee Zone 21.75 -0.21 0.02 -3.41 22.42 11003Hudson Valley Zone 26.69 -2.68 2.50 -7.91 28.52 9450Long Island Zone 30.71 -5.82 3.38 -8.51 33.72 10875Millwood Zone 27.15 -2.97 2.67 -8.67 29.17 9611Mohawk Valley Zone 22.34 -0.33 0.50 -4.04 23.36 10492N.Y.C. Zone 27.38 -3.02 2.84 -8.95 29.93 9693North Zone 20.08 0.00 -1.43 -3.64 20.63 6907West Zone 26.15 -4.45 0.18 -2.11 29.64 13228

Off-Peak

Capital Zone 12.27 0.00 0.55 -6.43 13.42 5083Central Zone 11.87 0.00 0.15 -5.61 11.56 5989Dunwoodie Zone 12.95 0.00 1.23 -7.23 13.76 4339Genesee Zone 11.56 0.00 -0.16 -5.34 11.15 5835Hudson Valley Zone 12.89 0.00 1.17 -7.15 13.71 4320Long Island Zone 15.32 -1.97 1.63 -7.83 17.96 5133Millwood Zone 12.94 0.00 1.22 -7.27 13.77 4335Mohawk Valley Zone 11.90 0.00 0.17 -5.79 11.69 5571N.Y.C. Zone 13.05 0.00 1.33 -7.25 13.87 4372North Zone 11.18 0.00 -0.55 -5.35 10.82 3824West Zone 11.78 0.00 0.06 -5.28 11.30 5943

Generation unit outage reportPlant/Operator Cap Fuel State Status Return Shut

Northeast

Darlington-1/OPG 876 n Ont. MO Unk 06/08/15Lake Superior/Brookfield 120 g Ont. PMO Unk 11/04/14Lennox-1/OPG 525 g Ont. MO Unk 04/09/15Pickering-1/OPG 500 n Ont. MO Unk 05/15/15Thunder Bay/Resolute 116 bio Ont. MO Unk 06/15/15Thunderbay-3/OPG 153 bio Ont. MO Unk 04/16/15

Northeast Platts M2MS Forward Curve, Jun 17 ($/MWh)Prompt month: Jul 15 On-peak Off-peak

Mass Hub 39.45 24.45N.Y. Zone G 45.30 25.20N.Y. Zone J 49.85 26.60N.Y. Zone A 43.80 22.15Ontario* 23.80 12.35

*Ontario prices are in Canadian dollars

N.Y. Zone A: Forward curve on-peak ($/MWh)

0

20

40

60

80

Cal-19

Cal-18

Cal-17

Cal-16

Q4-17

Jul/Aug-17

Mar/Apr-17

Jan/Feb-17

Sep-17

Jun-17

May-17

Q4-16

Jul/Aug-16

Mar/Apr-16

Jan/Feb-16

Sep-16

Jun-16

May-16

Q4-15

Jul/Aug-15

Sep-15

Aug-15

Jul-15

N.Y. Zone A: Marginal heat rate on-peak (Btu/kWh)

20000

25000

30000

35000

17-Jun9-Jun1-Jun22-May14-May

Month 1Month 2



Southeast & Central day-ahead bilateral indexes for Jun 18 ($/MWh) Avg Marginal Index Change $/Mo heat rateSoutheast On-peak

VACAR 39.50 -1.00 34.46 12951Southern, Into 40.75 -1.25 32.86 13837GTC, Into 41.25 -1.25 33.55 7385Florida 41.50 0.25 34.91 12170TVA, Into 38.75 -0.25 32.98 13047

Southeast Off-Peak

VACAR 20.75 0.50 18.21 6803Southern, Into 20.75 0.75 17.88 7046GTC, Into 21.75 1.25 18.49 7385Florida 23.50 0.25 22.18 6891TVA, Into 21.00 0.75 18.10 7071

Southeast load and generation mix forecast (GWh) Actual % Chg Forecast 16-Jun %Chg Year-ago 17-Jun 18-Jun 19-Jun 20-Jun 21-Jun

ERCOT

Load 1112 3 2 1108 1077 1066 1053 1065GenerationCoal 459 4 1 456 447 442 441 445Gas 369 -15 9 340 370 405 430 447Nuclear 123 0 12 123 123 123 123 123

SPP

Load 681 4 -3 677 670 661 658 683GenerationCoal 399 -7 -8 397 401 409 420 431Gas 137 7 4 138 141 143 158 174Nuclear 61 2 -6 61 61 61 61 61

Source: Bentek

Southeast & Central spot natural gas prices ($/MMBtu)

Source: Platts

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5


Panhandle, Tx. Okla. Houston Ship Channel Henry Hub

ERCOT & SPP gas and coal generation (GWh)

Source: Bentek

200

400

600

800

1000


Coal Gas

SouThEAST MARKETS

ERCoT dailies jump with gas pricesElectric Reliability Council of Texas dailies jumped Wednesday

as did spot gas, with demand expected to strengthen as temperatures were forecasted to rise.

ERCOT North Hub day-ahead on-peak futures rose $6 to around $32/MWh for Thursday delivery on the Intercontinental Exchange. Off-peak added 75 cents to about $19.50/MWh. Balance-of-the-week on-peak added 25 cents to nearly $29.50/MWh. Next-week on-peak dropped $1 about $30.75/MWh.

Spot natural gas at Houston Ship Channel gained 3 cents to about $2.865/MMBtu on ICE.

System load in ERCOT was forecast to peak at 48,225 MW Wednesday, 53,050 MW Thursday and 55,050 MW Friday.

The high temperature for Dallas was forecast at 87 degrees Fahrenheit for Thursday, 6 degrees below normal, with the low at 72, 1 degree below normal. In Houston, the high temperature was expected to rise to 88, 5 degrees below normal, with the low at 77, 4 degrees above normal.

Real-time prices through 10 am CDT Wednesday showed no congestion.

Wind generation was forecast to peak at 4,550 MW at midnight Thursday.

In the Southeast, dailies were weaker Wednesday even as spot gas prices made gains and temperatures were forecast steady.

Into Southern day-ahead on-peak physical power lost $1.75 to around $40.25/MWh for Thursday delivery on ICE. Off-peak was flat at about $20/MWh.

Spot natural gas at Transco Zone-3 added 2 cents to about $2.925/MMBtu on ICE.

The high temperature in Atlanta was forecast at 93 for Wednesday, 5 degrees above normal, with the low expected at 75, 6 degrees above normal.

ERCOT forwards were weaker Wednesday following NYMEX July gas futures, which fell 3.9 cents to about $2.855/MMBtu after gains in morning trading.

ERCOT North Hub July-August on-peak shed 75 cents to nearly $41.50/MWh on ICE around 2:30 pm EDT. ERCOT North Hub July heat rates were down 250 Btu/kWh on ICE. September on-peak lost $1 to roughly $31.50/MWh. Fourth quarter on-peak dropped 25 cents to about $29.75/MWh.

Daily generation outage referencesMO unplanned maintenance outage RF refueling outagePMO planned maintenance outage Unk unknownOA offline/availableFuels: Nuclear=n; Coal=c; Natural gas=g; Hydro=h ; Wind=wSources: Generation owners, public information and other market sources.



ERCoT average day-ahead LMP for Jun 18 ($/MWh) Avg MarginalHub/Zone Average Change $/Mo heat rate

On-peak

Bus Average 29.30 3.81 27.23 10286Hub Average 29.38 3.78 27.48 10313Houston Hub 29.67 3.70 28.28 10350North Hub 29.17 3.87 26.64 10264South Hub 29.39 3.72 28.19 10183West Hub 29.28 3.82 26.78 10501AEN Zone 29.84 3.94 32.32 10700CPS Zone 29.85 3.71 29.59 10436LCRA Zone 29.50 3.81 29.10 10315Rayburn Zone 29.19 3.83 27.18 10270Houston Zone 30.22 4.05 28.54 10542North Zone 29.22 3.87 27.24 10282South Zone 33.08 5.36 34.49 11461West Zone 33.53 5.03 32.83 12024

Off-Peak

Bus Average 19.51 -0.03 17.79 6884Hub Average 19.51 -0.03 17.84 6886Houston Hub 19.54 -0.01 17.95 6855North Hub 19.49 -0.04 17.68 6910South Hub 19.53 -0.01 18.01 6789West Hub 19.50 -0.04 17.73 7043AEN Zone 19.54 -0.01 18.68 7056CPS Zone 19.53 -0.04 18.33 6856LCRA Zone 19.52 -0.03 17.96 6852Rayburn Zone 19.49 -0.04 17.71 6910Houston Zone 19.54 -0.02 17.95 6855North Zone 19.49 -0.04 17.69 6910South Zone 19.64 0.08 18.18 6827West Zone 19.54 -0.05 17.89 7056

MISo South average day-ahead LMP for Jun 18 ($/MWh) Avg MarginalHub/Zone Average Cong Loss Change $/Mo heat rate

On-peak

Arkansas Hub 33.58 2.28 -1.36 2.30 29.49 11911Louisiana Hub 35.22 2.47 0.09 -0.08 42.15 12350Texas Hub 36.52 3.73 0.13 6.19 35.86 12748

Off-Peak

Arkansas Hub 21.96 1.98 -0.67 -0.35 20.54 7779Louisiana Hub 23.04 2.07 0.33 -0.25 21.92 8069Texas Hub 23.27 2.01 0.62 -0.41 22.39 8165

SPP average day-ahead LMP for Jun 18 ($/MWh) Avg MarginalHub/Zone Average Cong Loss Change $/Mo heat rate

On-peak

SPP North Hub 28.72 0.01 -0.72 1.78 25.37 10274SPP South Hub 30.41 0.00 0.98 1.15 29.77 11035

Off-Peak

SPP North Hub 16.30 -0.60 -1.23 -0.13 13.87 5869SPP South Hub 20.22 1.53 0.56 0.58 18.40 7454

Southeast near-term bilateral markets ($/MWh)Package Trade date Range

Southern, into

Next-week 06/17 45.25-46.25Next-week 06/16 42.50-43.50Next-week 06/11 42.00-43.00Next-week (off-peak) 06/17 23.00-24.00

GTC, into

Next-week 06/11 42.50-43.50


Southeast & Central

Big Brown/Luminant 575 c Texas MO Unk 04/13/15Bowen-2/Georgia Power 800 c Ga. PMO Unk 04/04/13Limestone-2/NRG 860 c Texas MO Unk 08/09/14Martin Lake-2/Luminant 750 c Texas MO Unk 02/01/15Monticello-1/Luminant 565 c Texas MO Unk 06/11/14Monticello-2/Luminant 565 c Texas MO Unk 06/11/14Robinson-2/CP&L 797 n S.C. MO Unk 05/12/15Welsh-3/Sewpco 528 c Texas MO Unk 03/30/15

Southeast & Central Platts M2MS Forward Curve, Jun 17 ($/MWh)Prompt month: Jul 15 On-peak Off-peak

Southern Into 37.05 27.25Entergy Into 43.55 30.40ERCOT North 37.20 19.00ERCOT Houston 37.85 21.25ERCOT West 37.95 20.70ERCOT South 39.35 20.55

Southern Into: Forward curve on-peak ($/MWh)

0

10

20

30

40

50

Cal-19

Cal-18

Cal-17

Cal-16

Q4-17

Jul/Aug-17

Mar/Apr-17

Jan/Feb-17

Sep-17

Jun-17

May-17

Q4-16

Jul/Aug-16

Mar/Apr-16

Jan/Feb-16

Sep-16

Jun-16

May-16

Q4-15

Jul/Aug-15

Sep-15

Aug-15

Jul-15

Southern Into: Marginal heat rate on-peak (Btu/kWh)

10000

11000

12000

13000

14000

15000

16000


Month 1Month 2



Western day-ahead bilateral indexes for Jun 18 ($/MWh) Avg Marginal Index Change $/Mo heat rateOn-peak

Mid-C 37.73 3.75 28.41 14456John Day 38.75 3.75 29.55 14847COB 39.93 0.54 31.66 13962NOB 39.25 3.00 29.41 15038Palo Verde 41.79 3.79 28.23 14510Westwing 39.75 1.25 28.36 13802Pinnacle Peak 42.50 3.50 29.45 14757Mead 45.25 5.25 29.64 15313Mona 44.00 1.75 29.50 16206Four Corners 45.00 2.50 28.88 16043

Off-Peak

Mid-C 26.23 0.57 22.45 10050John Day 27.25 0.50 23.49 10441COB 27.25 1.50 23.66 9528NOB 26.75 0.00 23.40 10249Palo Verde 21.50 -0.25 20.97 7465Westwing 21.75 -0.25 21.42 7552Pinnacle Peak 22.25 -0.50 22.13 7726Mead 24.00 0.00 22.65 8122Mona 20.75 -0.25 20.01 7643Four Corners 21.75 -0.50 20.38 7754

Western load and generation mix forecast (GWh) Actual % Chg Forecast 16-Jun %Chg Year-ago 17-Jun 18-Jun 19-Jun 20-Jun 21-Jun

CAISO

Load 647 -3 -4 650 657 659 629 616GenerationGas 249 7 -13 234 243 264 281 285Nuclear 56 0 18 56 56 56 56 56

Source: Bentek

Western spot natural gas prices ($/MMBtu)

Source: Platts

1

2

3

4

5


NW, Can. Bdr. (Sumas) SoCal Gas city-gate PG&E city-gate

CAISO gas generation (GWh)

Source: Bentek

100

150

200

250

300

350


WEST MARKETS

West dailies rise with stronger gas pricesWest dailies were mostly up Wednesday amid higher spot

natural gas prices.In California, SP15 day-ahead on-peak rose $2.25 to about

$40.75/MWh on the IntercontinentalExchange for Thursday delivery. SP15 day-ahead off-peak was around $28.50/MWh after moving up 50 cents.

The California Independent System Operator projected demand to peak at about 36,275 Wednesday, 35,975 MW Thursday and 35,800 MW Friday.

Spot natural gas at SoCal gas jumped 5 cents to around $3.166/MMBtu.

In the Southwest, Palo Verde day-ahead on-peak rose almost $5 to about $43/MWh, while day-ahead off-peak slipped 25 cents to around $21.50/MWh.

Spot natural gas in the Southwest was stronger, with Opal gaining 6 cents to about $2.791/MMBtu.

Phoenix temperatures were forecast nearly 10 degrees above average, with highs expected in the mid-110s through Saturday.

In the Northwest, Mid-C day-ahead on-peak was $3.75 over the previous days settlement at around $37.75/MWh. Mid-C day-ahead off-peak traded at about $26.25/MWh after also gaining 50 cents on electronic exchange.

Temperature highs in Portland were forecast in the upper 70s Thursday, about 5 degrees over normal.

Western US forwards were mostly stronger Wednesday afternoon, despite weaker NYMEX gas futures.

The NYMEX July gas contract fell 3.9 cents to roughly $2.855/MMBtu.

In the Northwest, Mid-Columbia on-peak July jumped $2 to about $43.50/MWh on the IntercontinentalExchange around 2:30 pm EST. Mid-C off-peak July was flat at roughly $28.25/MWh. Mid-C on-peak August moved up $1.25 to nearly $42.50/MWh, while fourth quarter on-peak edged 25 cents higher to around $31/MWh.

In California, SP15 on-peak July rose 50 cents to about $42.25/MWh. SP15 on-peak fourth quarter, however, slipped 25 cents to around $39/MWh.

In the Southwest, Palo Verde on-peak July increased nearly $1.25 to almost $37.25/MWh.

Market coveragePlatts provides a detailed methodology related to its coverage of North American electricity markets at: http://platts.com/MethodologyAndSpecifications/ElectricPower. Questions can be directed to Eric Wieser at (202) 383-2092 or [email protected].



CAISo average day-ahead LMP for Jun 18 ($/MWh) Avg MarginalHub/Zone Average Cong Loss Change $/Mo heat rate

On-peak

NP15 Gen Hub 38.06 -1.11 -1.20 -1.95 34.71 11783SP15 Gen Hub 38.69 -0.03 -1.65 -0.32 33.36 13092ZP26 Gen Hub 36.64 -1.02 -2.71 -1.33 32.71 12399

Off-Peak

NP15 Gen Hub 29.01 -1.48 -0.53 0.57 27.78 9087SP15 Gen Hub 29.84 0.00 -1.18 1.52 27.80 10240ZP26 Gen Hub 29.47 0.00 -1.55 1.61 27.48 10114

Western near-term bilateral markets ($/MWh)Package Trade date Range

Mid-C

Bal-week 06/16 34.00-34.50Bal-week 06/15 35.25-35.75Bal-month 06/17 44.00-45.00Bal-month 06/16 40.00-41.50Bal-month 06/12 31.75-32.25Bal-month 06/11 30.00-30.50Bal-month (off-peak) 06/17 29.00-29.50Bal-month (off-peak) 06/16 27.00-27.50Bal-month (off-peak) 06/15 24.75-25.25Bal-month (off-peak) 06/12 23.50-24.00Bal-month (off-peak) 06/11 22.50-23.00Next-week 06/12 35.75-36.25Next-week 06/11 28.00-28.50

Palo Verde

Bal-month 06/17 36.25-36.75Bal-month 06/16 34.50-35.00Bal-month 06/12 30.25-30.75Bal-month 06/11 27.50-28.00


West

Big Creek/SCE 820 h Calif. MO Unk 06/15/15Columbia/Energy Northwest 1141 n Wash. MO Unk 05/11/15Colusa/PG&E 641 g Calif. PMO Unk 06/01/15CVSR-A/NRG 210 s Calif. MO Unk 06/16/15Gilroy/Calpine 120 g Calif. PMO Unk 06/16/15McCoy/NextEra 250 s Calif. MO Unk 06/15/15Moss Landing-1/Dynegy 510 g Calif. MO Unk 05/25/15Pittsburg/Pittsburg 317 g Calif. PMO Unk 06/14/15

Western Platts M2MS Forward Curve, Jun 17 ($/MWh)Prompt month: Jul 15 On-peak Off-peak

Mid-C 43.10 28.50Palo Verde 36.95 26.80Mead 39.15 28.10NP15 42.85 32.00SP15 42.20 32.55

BPA & CAISO hydro and wind generation (GWh)

Source: BPA and CAISO

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

16-Jun11-Jun6-Jun1-Jun27-May22-May17-May

CAISO WindBPA WindCAISO HydroBPA Hydro

Mead: Forward curve on-peak ($/MWh)

0

10

20

30

40

50

Cal-19

Cal-18

Cal-17

Cal-16

Q4-17

Q3-17

Q2-17

Q1-17

Q4-16

Q3-16

Q2-16

Q1-16

Q4-15

Q3-15

Sep-15

Aug-15

Jul-15

Mead: Marginal heat rate on-peak (Btu/kWh)

11000

12000

13000

14000

15000

16000


Month 1Month 2



PJM & MISo load and generation mix forecast (GWh) Actual % Chg Forecast 16-Jun %Chg Year-ago 17-Jun 18-Jun 19-Jun 20-Jun 21-Jun

PJM

Load 2414 -7 0 2438 2296 2174 2020 2238GenerationCoal 921 -9 -10 967 937 894 849 819Gas 567 1 31 506 479 470 464 532Nuclear 773 2 2 773 773 773 773 773

MISO

Load 1979 -5 -2 1994 1982 1875 1834 1895GenerationCoal 1059 -6 -15 1068 1074 1041 1071 1117Gas 341 -18 44 347 346 322 346 386Nuclear 307 1 62 182 187 204 233 263

Source: Bentek

PJM & MISO spot natural gas prices ($/MMBtu)

Source: Platts

1

2

3

4


Chicago city-gates Columbia Gas App Tx.Eastern, M-3

PJM & MISO gas and coal generation (GWh)

Source: Bentek

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500


Coal Gas

PJM & MISo MARKETS

PJM West steady in mid-$30s/MWhMid-Atlantic day-ahead power prices were steady Wednesday

as a small uptick in demand battled lower spot gas prices.PJM West Hub day-ahead on-peak was holding firm in the

mid-$30s/MWh for Thursday delivery.Texas Eastern M-3 natural gas was off 18 cents dropping down

to about $1.69/MMBtu for Thursday delivery on the Intercontinental Exchange.

The PJM Interconnection predicted peak demand Wednesday at 115,653 MW, a drop of 15,340 MW from the previous days peak. Thursdays peakload was forecat to be near 118,000 MW.

High temperatures in the PJM Interconnection eastern region Thursday were forecast in the upper 70s to low 90s.

Midcontinent day-ahead power prices edged up Wednesday with demand set to go up Thursday with some warmer weather in the region.

Indiana Hub day-ahead on-peak climbed close to $3 in the low $30s/MWh for Thursday delivery on ICE.

The Midcontinent ISO predicted Wednesdays peakload at 96,920 MW, down about 1,400 MW from the previous day. Thursdays peakload was forecast at 97,070 MW.

High temperatures in MISO were expected to be in the upper 70s to upper 80s on Thursday.

Dailies in the Midwestern portion of PJM were up Wednesday as warm weather is forecast to push up demand slightly.

AD Hub on-peak added about $2 in the mid-$30s/MWh for Thursday delivery on ICE. NI Hub on-peak was up close to $2 in the upper $20s/MWh.

High temperatures for Chicago Thursday were forecast in the upper 70s.

Mid-Atlantic forwards took a hit Wednesday with a drop in NYMEX gas futures.

PJM West on-peak July financial futures gave up more than $2 going down to about $52.50/MWh on ICE around 2:30 pm EDT. PJM West on-peak July-August also fell $2 to $49.25/MWh.

NYMEX July gas futures were down 3.9 cents to $2.855/MMBtu. Texas Eastern M-3 July gas basis widened out by about 4 cents to negative $1.30/MMBtu on ICE.

Midwest forwards were lower with nearby power market weakness and lower NYMEX gas futures.

AD Hub July on-peak lost $1.50 going down to $48/MWh. Indiana Hub July on-peak dropped $1.75 to $39.50/MWh.

Additional information on data and analysisFor more information on data and analysis from Bentek Analytics, including five-day load and generation mix forecasts and relative load normalized by temperature, email [email protected], or call 303-988-1320. Average on-peak and off-peak LMP and marginal heat-rate data is available via Platts Market Data. More detailed, hourly LMP and marginal heat-rate data is available from Bentek Analytics.



MISo average day-ahead LMP for Jun 18 ($/MWh) Avg MarginalHub/Zone Average Cong Loss Change $/Mo heat rate

On-peak

Indiana Hub 33.53 0.19 0.69 3.19 31.64 14812Michigan Hub 33.49 -0.01 0.84 -0.17 30.85 11265Minnesota Hub 24.35 -6.42 -1.89 1.82 24.89 8647Illinois Hub 30.50 -1.58 -0.58 3.03 29.17 10536

Off-Peak

Indiana Hub 21.88 0.74 0.49 0.40 18.69 9581Michigan Hub 21.89 0.66 0.59 -0.30 18.89 7431Minnesota Hub 12.95 -6.43 -1.27 1.49 13.82 4635Illinois Hub 19.94 -0.27 -0.44 0.87 17.20 6914

PJM average day-ahead LMP for Jun 18 ($/MWh) Avg MarginalHub/Zone Average Cong Loss Change $/Mo heat rate

On-peak

AEP Gen Hub 35.55 0.19 -1.84 1.56 33.88 14225AEP-Dayton Hub 37.00 0.56 -0.77 1.80 35.77 14803ATSI Gen Hub 36.03 -0.67 -0.50 0.57 34.92 14545Chicago Gen Hub 31.61 -3.47 -2.12 2.46 29.66 10964Chicago Hub 32.51 -3.09 -1.60 2.28 31.16 11277Dominion Hub 41.54 3.95 0.39 1.96 39.77 14099Eastern Hub 33.59 -5.04 1.42 -1.20 32.12 14698New Jersey Hub 29.60 -8.37 0.77 -1.12 29.48 12952Northern Illinois Hub 32.26 -3.10 -1.84 2.32 30.59 11191Ohio Hub 36.18 -0.31 -0.71 1.11 35.22 12484West Internal Hub 38.43 1.87 -0.65 1.18 37.03 18886Western Hub 37.64 1.44 -1.00 1.38 36.53 18497AEP Zone 36.86 0.33 -0.66 1.73 35.68 14750Allegheny Power Zone 38.08 0.97 -0.09 1.82 36.30 15508Atlantic Elec Zone 29.29 -8.82 0.91 -1.46 29.57 12820ATSI Zone 37.02 -0.28 0.10 0.55 35.85 14945BG&E Zone 60.09 21.12 1.77 6.45 51.98 24662ComEd Zone 32.34 -3.16 -1.70 2.30 30.92 11218Dayton P&L Zone 40.24 2.58 0.46 0.16 37.23 14070Delmarva P&L Zone 33.69 -4.90 1.39 -1.69 31.84 14746Dominion Zone 42.40 4.47 0.73 2.14 40.47 14391Duke Zone 46.49 10.01 -0.73 -1.39 39.90 16256Duquesne Light Zone 35.98 -0.24 -0.99 1.15 36.39 16147EKPC Zone 34.18 -1.87 -1.15 2.48 33.84 15112JCPL Zone 29.50 -8.38 0.68 -1.15 29.39 12911MetEd Zone 28.45 -8.86 0.11 -1.99 28.53 11512PECO Zone 28.61 -8.88 0.29 -1.62 28.75 11577Pennsylvania Elec Zone 32.53 -4.30 -0.37 -0.39 33.56 15506PEPCO Zone 46.77 8.69 0.87 3.39 43.83 19194PPL Zone 28.09 -9.14 0.03 -1.39 28.36 11368PSEG Zone 29.77 -8.24 0.82 -1.02 29.59 13031Rockland Elec Zone 30.20 -7.75 0.75 -0.85 29.59 13216

Off-Peak

AEP Gen Hub 21.83 0.86 -0.51 -0.43 19.89 8713AEP-Dayton Hub 22.37 0.96 -0.06 -0.42 20.59 8928ATSI Gen Hub 21.80 0.44 -0.11 -0.87 19.89 8799Chicago Gen Hub 17.34 -3.22 -0.92 1.88 15.97 6042Chicago Hub 17.91 -2.90 -0.66 1.70 16.65 6242Dominion Hub 23.66 1.76 0.43 0.04 21.44 8075Eastern Hub 19.69 -1.95 0.17 -1.77 16.76 8137New Jersey Hub 19.47 -1.88 -0.13 -1.81 16.74 8046Northern Illinois Hub 17.80 -2.89 -0.78 1.72 16.37 6202Ohio Hub 22.40 0.99 -0.06 -0.45 20.70 7776West Internal Hub 22.35 0.97 -0.09 -0.49 20.54 10805Western Hub 22.35 1.27 -0.39 -0.03 20.12 10806AEP Zone 22.42 0.94 0.01 -0.39 20.51 8946Allegheny Power Zone 23.20 1.63 0.10 0.37 20.43 9389Atlantic Elec Zone 19.36 -1.93 -0.18 -1.88 16.55 7999ATSI Zone 22.00 0.43 0.10 -0.88 20.13 8879BG&E Zone 24.73 2.47 0.79 -3.21 25.11 9910ComEd Zone 17.85 -2.90 -0.72 1.69 16.52 6221Dayton P&L Zone 22.93 0.97 0.48 -0.51 20.80 8044Delmarva P&L Zone 19.74 -1.94 0.21 -1.68 16.67 8157Dominion Zone 23.93 1.95 0.50 0.15 21.68 8166Duke Zone 22.54 1.14 -0.07 -0.51 20.40 7909Duquesne Light Zone 21.48 0.36 -0.36 -0.88 19.84 9559EKPC Zone 22.01 0.80 -0.27 -0.21 20.00 9619JCPL Zone 19.40 -1.90 -0.17 -1.82 16.68 8018MetEd Zone 16.65 -4.45 -0.37 -4.32 15.96 6508PECO Zone 19.27 -1.95 -0.25 -1.83 16.45 7532Pennsylvania Elec Zone 20.80 -0.49 -0.19 -1.03 19.27 9940PEPCO Zone 24.01 2.11 0.42 -0.40 22.52 9618PPL Zone 18.72 -2.29 -0.47 -2.19 16.36 7314PSEG Zone 19.57 -1.84 -0.06 -1.78 16.84 8086Rockland Elec Zone 19.67 -1.71 -0.09 -1.77 16.95 8128


PJM & MISO

DC Cook-1/AEP 1041 n Mich. MO Unk 05/31/15

PJM & MISo Platts M2MS Forward Curve, Jun 17 ($/MWh)Prompt month: Jul 15 On-peak Off-peak

PJM West 52.25 30.00AD Hub 47.40 28.85NI Hub 41.60 23.70Indiana Hub 39.40 27.25

Ad Hub: Forward curve on-peak ($/MWh)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Cal-19

Cal-18

Cal-17

Cal-16

Q4-17

Jul/Aug-17

Mar/Apr-17

Jan/Feb-17

Sep-17

Jun-17

May-17

Q4-16

Jul/Aug-16

Mar/Apr-16

Jan/Feb-16

Sep-16

Jun-16

May-16

Q4-15

Jul/Aug-15

Sep-15

Aug-15

Jul-15

AD Hub: Marginal heat rate on-peak (Btu/kWh)

10000

15000

20000

25000


Month 1Month 2



ISoNE average real-time LMP for Jun 16 ($/MWh) Avg Marginal DA/RT Avg MoHub/Zone Average Change $/Mo heat rate spread DA/RT

On-peak

Internal Hub 16.98 -11.19 19.67 10892 12.21 4.13Connecticut 17.31 -11.24 20.66 7997 12.24 4.76NE Mass-Boston 17.01 -11.38 19.83 10911 12.23 4.35SE Mass 16.77 -11.34 19.63 10758 12.04 4.06West-Central Mass 17.05 -11.20 19.72 10937 12.28 4.18Rhode Island 16.70 -10.98 19.46 10716 11.91 4.03Maine 17.02 -11.16 19.45 5940 12.05 3.98New Hampshire 17.07 -11.16 19.63 5959 12.17 4.13Vermont 17.02 -10.88 19.35 5942 11.73 4.17

Off-Peak

Internal Hub 17.51 -6.31 11.17 11234 2.21 3.08Connecticut 17.77 -6.39 11.23 8206 2.15 3.22NE Mass-Boston 17.50 -6.36 11.22 11226 2.19 3.06SE Mass 17.41 -6.36 11.18 11166 2.20 3.11West-Central Mass 17.58 -6.29 11.19 11280 2.22 3.10Rhode Island 17.40 -6.31 11.17 11163 2.16 3.32Maine 17.12 -6.07 10.97 5974 1.96 2.94New Hampshire 17.36 -6.09 11.05 6058 2.11 3.04Vermont 17.57 -5.81 10.99 6131 2.09 3.19

NYISo average real-time LMP for Jun 16 ($/MWh) Avg Marginal DA/RT Avg MoHub/Zone Average Change $/Mo heat rate spread DA/RT

On-peak

Capital Zone 21.09 -8.49 18.15 9280 6.64 5.51Central Zone 20.51 -9.31 18.29 11228 7.07 5.40Dunwoodie Zone 22.14 -9.03 21.51 8141 15.50 7.41Genesee Zone 19.94 -8.11 17.59 10915 6.48 4.70Hudson Valley Zone 22.18 -8.70 21.23 8153 14.02 7.02Long Island Zone 22.22 -13.72 28.53 8169 19.92 5.04Millwood Zone 22.41 -8.69 21.53 8239 15.23 7.36Mohawk Valley Zone 20.52 -8.50 17.94 10121 7.26 5.30N.Y.C. Zone 24.31 -10.22 23.40 8939 14.23 6.29North Zone 18.91 -7.55 16.22 6602 5.90 4.25West Zone 20.87 -16.80 23.97 11423 7.45 5.98

Off-Peak

Capital Zone 21.34 -5.25 12.74 9390 -3.65 0.42Central Zone 20.62 -5.20 11.30 11290 -3.69 -0.12Dunwoodie Zone 22.26 -5.51 13.25 8184 -3.51 0.17Genesee Zone 20.22 -4.95 10.84 11072 -3.80 -0.07Hudson Valley Zone 22.18 -5.65 13.24 8156 -3.51 0.13Long Island Zone 22.35 -6.49 14.93 8218 -0.66 2.88Millwood Zone 22.24 -5.55 13.28 8177 -3.49 0.14Mohawk Valley Zone 20.75 -5.19 11.68 10236 -3.62 -0.38N.Y.C. Zone 22.34 -5.64 13.57 8215 -3.43 -0.06North Zone 19.63 -4.72 10.62 6852 -3.67 -0.19West Zone 20.15 -4.92 10.80 11030 -3.60 0.11

ontario average hourly prices for Jun 16 ($/MWh) Avg MarginalHub/Zone Average Change $/Mo heat rate

On-peak

IESO 19.15 -10.09 18.26 6714

Off-Peak

IESO 7.02 -4.22 4.25 2461

PJM average real-time LMP for Jun 16 ($/MWh) Avg Marginal DA/RT Avg MoHub/Zone Average Change $/Mo heat rate spread DA/RT

On-peak

AEP Gen Hub 49.13 -15.18 35.92 21329 -15.10 -2.15AEP-Dayton Hub 50.82 -15.43 37.39 22064 -12.92 -1.66ATSI Gen Hub 48.69 -16.55 37.48 20970 -11.77 -2.66Chicago Gen Hub 43.67 -9.01 32.03 16248 -13.77 -2.47Chicago Hub 44.65 -10.47 32.99 16613 -13.63 -1.85Dominion Hub 61.10 -11.70 40.20 21920 -13.36 -0.52Eastern Hub 96.21 25.00 35.89 45677 -49.39 -4.03New Jersy Hub 27.21 -22.66 28.73 12918 13.06 0.67Northern Illinois Hub 44.24 -10.43 32.67 16463 -13.61 -2.14Ohio Hub 50.86 -15.34 37.49 18629 -12.18 -2.32West Internal Hub 53.10 -14.59 40.22 28810 -12.73 -3.29Western Hub 55.07 -14.21 38.29 29874 -15.65 -1.81AEP Zone 51.12 -14.80 37.26 22195 -12.71 -1.62Allegheny Power Zone 52.64 -14.69 38.19 23378 -13.86 -2.00Atlantic Elec Zone 31.98 -17.73 28.74 15182 9.52 0.77ATSI Zone 49.52 -17.08 39.26 21328 -11.19 -3.52BG&E Zone 122.08 5.81 61.76 53858 -65.99 -10.39ComEd Zone 44.45 -10.29 33.06 16540 -13.32 -2.18Dayton P&L Zone 55.36 -22.88 43.38 20714 -16.90 -6.52Delmarva P&L Zone 106.12 34.06 36.28 50380 -59.00 -4.77Dominion Zone 63.32 -11.44 41.29 22716 -15.84 -0.93Duke Zone 59.11 -38.47 44.02 22116 -17.08 -5.03Duquesne Light Zone 47.42 -16.34 37.86 23020 -11.08 -1.35EKPC Zone 48.26 -9.83 35.27 23743 -11.48 -1.32JCPL Zone 26.47 -23.47 29.47 12566 13.59 -0.16MetEd Zone 25.38 -23.98 27.33 11031 14.45 1.09PECO Zone 26.32 -23.83 27.75 11438 14.18 0.92Pennsylvania Elec Zone 38.41 -20.05 34.26 19801 -1.11 -0.59PEPCO Zone 76.86 -8.13 45.41 33908 -30.50 -1.73PPL Zone 24.06 -23.53 27.22 10456 15.52 1.09PSEG Zone 26.49 -23.40 28.22 12577 13.62 1.28Rockland Elec Zone 27.82 -22.96 28.46 13208 11.98 1.01

Off-Peak

AEP Gen Hub 22.91 0.09 19.46 9948 -0.15 0.16AEP-Dayton Hub 23.52 0.16 20.60 10211 -0.30 -0.27ATSI Gen Hub 23.26 -0.16 19.54 10017 0.18 0.06Chicago Gen Hub 16.80 -5.42 13.92 6251 4.07 2.00Chicago Hub 17.67 -4.94 14.05 6573 3.54 2.55Dominion Hub 24.55 0.95 20.78 8806 -0.33 0.39Eastern Hub 20.71 -3.01 15.09 9834 3.18 1.19New Jersy Hub 20.48 -2.64 15.11 9725 3.05 1.18Northern Illinois Hub 17.64 -4.86 13.97 6563 3.42 2.33Ohio Hub 23.62 0.18 20.88 8651 -0.35 -0.42West Internal Hub 23.59 0.27 19.95 12798 -0.01 0.33Western Hub 23.59 0.24 19.52 12795 -0.45 0.31AEP Zone 23.55 0.14 20.32 10223 -0.14 -0.07Allegheny Power Zone 23.60 0.08 20.15 10483 0.01 -0.04Atlantic Elec Zone 20.51 -2.80 14.94 9737 3.04 1.14ATSI Zone 23.49 -0.19 19.68 10116 0.24 0.16BG&E Zone 27.57 3.12 24.73 12163 0.40 0.22ComEd Zone 17.61 -4.94 14.00 6554 3.54 2.46Dayton P&L Zone 24.15 -0.08 20.36 9036 -0.29 0.14Delmarva P&L Zone 20.60 -3.10 14.99 9780 3.30 1.19Dominion Zone 24.82 1.07 21.04 8903 -0.58 0.37Duke Zone 23.40 0.08 19.73 8755 -0.17 0.37Duquesne Light Zone 22.87 -0.34 19.26 11102 0.59 0.32EKPC Zone 22.95 -0.06 19.46 11290 -0.13 0.28JCPL Zone 20.44 -2.63 15.07 9703 3.02 1.16MetEd Zone 20.41 -2.66 14.25 8871 3.00 1.36PECO Zone 20.32 -2.92 14.86 8833 3.18 1.12Pennsylvania Elec Zone 22.19 -1.31 18.70 11437 1.27 0.31PEPCO Zone 25.98 1.94 21.85 11463 -1.97 0.46PPL Zone 20.25 -2.97 15.16 8802 3.00 0.77PSEG Zone 20.52 -2.60 15.19 9742 3.06 1.20Rockland Elec Zone 20.71 -2.36 15.49 9834 2.83 1.02



Alberta average hourly prices for Jun 16 ($/MWh) Avg MarginalHub/Zone Average Change $/Mo heat rate

On-peak

AESO 40.59 -4.92 75.97 16567

Off-Peak

AESO 17.52 -5.31 19.19 7152

CAISo average real-time LMP for Jun 16 ($/MWh) Avg Marginal DA/RT Avg MoHub/Zone Average Change $/Mo heat rate spread DA/RT

On-peak

NP15 Gen Hub 31.85 1.85 48.95 10307 7.29 -14.79SP15 Gen Hub 32.13 2.38 34.96 11900 6.37 -2.29ZP26 Gen Hub 32.46 3.19 36.51 12021 5.39 -4.37

Off-Peak

NP15 Gen Hub 21.92 -3.40 25.95 7093 6.96 1.71SP15 Gen Hub 21.96 -2.68 18.79 8132 6.68 8.85ZP26 Gen Hub 21.82 -2.65 19.51 8083 6.58 7.82

ERCoT average real-time LMP for Jun 16 ($/MWh) Avg Marginal DA/RT Avg MoHub/Zone Average Change $/Mo heat rate spread DA/RT

On-peak

Bus Average 22.97 -5.28 24.30 8491 3.32 2.91Hub Average 22.99 -5.26 24.29 8499 3.39 3.19Houston Hub 22.99 -5.26 24.23 8390 3.29 4.11North Hub 22.87 -5.38 24.35 8447 3.13 2.22South Hub 23.25 -5.00 24.14 8363 3.45 4.14West Hub 22.84 -5.41 24.44 8943 3.29 2.26AEN Zone 22.84 -5.41 29.92 8943 4.81 2.96CPS Zone 22.66 -5.59 24.26 8297 6.43 5.53LCRA Zone 22.83 -5.42 26.55 8360 4.23 2.73Rayburn Zone 22.87 -5.38 24.81 8447 3.46 2.35Houston Zone 22.99 -5.26 24.25 8391 3.20 4.34North Zone 22.87 -5.38 24.93 8447 3.23 2.30South Zone 39.08 10.83 27.77 14059 20.09 7.23West Zone 22.82 -5.43 30.03 8937 13.45 3.03

Off-Peak

Bus Average 20.37 -0.19 17.25 7532 -0.76 0.33Hub Average 20.37 -0.19 17.27 7532 -0.75 0.36Houston Hub 20.37 -0.19 17.28 7435 -0.75 0.47North Hub 20.37 -0.19 17.19 7524 -0.77 0.26South Hub 20.37 -0.19 17.37 7328 -0.73 0.45West Hub 20.37 -0.19 17.23 7977 -0.74 0.27AEN Zone 20.37 -0.19 17.44 7977 -0.39 1.13CPS Zone 20.37 -0.19 17.60 7459 -0.71 0.57LCRA Zone 20.37 -0.19 17.25 7458 -0.57 0.52Rayburn Zone 20.37 -0.19 17.20 7524 -0.76 0.29Houston Zone 20.37 -0.19 17.28 7435 -0.75 0.47North Zone 20.37 -0.19 17.19 7524 -0.76 0.27South Zone 20.37 -0.19 17.41 7328 -0.37 0.59West Zone 20.37 -0.19 17.19 7977 -0.69 0.49

MISo average real-time LMP for Jun 16 ($/MWh) Avg Marginal DA/RT Avg MoHub/Zone Average Change $/Mo heat rate spread DA/RT

On-peak

Indiana Hub 40.73 3.41 30.30 20037 -8.59 1.30Michigan Hub 47.78 -5.72 31.22 16831 -16.14 -0.70Minnesota Hub 24.82 5.89 24.32 9411 -3.91 0.76Illinois Hub 29.58 -9.56 27.40 10936 0.67 1.79

Off-Peak

Indiana Hub 23.85 1.86 18.25 11735 -1.75 0.07Michigan Hub 23.62 1.68 20.25 8321 -0.94 -1.75Minnesota Hub 13.38 -1.28 14.34 5072 -0.37 -0.32Illinois Hub 20.87 -1.39 17.17 7713 -0.46 -0.27

MISo South average real-time LMP for Jun 16 ($/MWh) Avg Marginal DA/RT Avg MoHub/Zone Average Change $/Mo heat rate spread DA/RT

On-peak

Arkansas Hub 34.65 3.81 27.64 12879 -3.82 1.48Louisiana Hub 36.33 3.19 58.71 13357 -3.92 -15.70Texas Hub 34.83 2.65 34.74 12713 -2.50 1.43

Off-Peak

Arkansas Hub 21.48 0.21 20.07 7986 -0.77 0.26Louisiana Hub 22.77 0.69 21.43 8370 -0.89 0.33Texas Hub 22.89 0.35 21.85 8353 -0.69 0.41

SPP average real-time LMP for Jun 16 ($/MWh) Avg Marginal DA/RT Avg MoHub/Zone Average Change $/Mo heat rate spread DA/RT

On-peak

SPP North Hub 21.90 -0.71 26.63 8383 3.65 -1.57SPP South Hub 25.75 1.12 29.46 9988 2.82 0.30

Off-Peak

SPP North Hub 14.79 -1.41 11.98 5660 1.94 1.59SPP South Hub 21.31 1.99 16.98 8266 -1.15 1.23



NEWS

Firms detail REITs, YieldCos for transmissionTransmission financiers outlined the structure and opportunity

of real-estate investment trusts and YieldCos as alternative financing mechanisms for new transmission lines at a Platts transmission and development conference held earlier this week in Arlington, Virginia.

Shedding light on the mechanics of REITs was Brant Meleski, chief financial officer of InfraREIT, a transmission developer based in Texas. As indicated by its name, the company is set up as a REIT and went through its initial public offering this past January.

The company is a spin-off from Hunt Power, which has roots going back to the late 1990s and was started by Hunter Hunt. Prior to the InfraREIT IPO, Hunt Power had built up a portfolio of nearly a billion dollars through the purchase of $200 million in transmission assets in 2010 from Lindsey Goldberg, a private equity firm, as well as investing approximately $700 million in Texas CREZ transmission build-out in 2013. All of its current assets are regulated by the Texas PUC and lie within ERCOTs market territory.

InfraREITs structure is one where Texas regulators look at the company as though it is one utility, but in reality it is set up as two separate entities where the REIT leases 99% of its transmission assets to Hunt Power, which operates and manages the assets and acts as the lessee. Hunt Power also owns a 25% stake in the REIT.

Mileski remarked that under this structure the regulator doesnt regulate the leases or comment on them, but rather puts the two companies financials together, strips out the leases, and regulates as though we are a traditional C-corporation doing T&D.

Under this structure, Hunt Power manages the long-term development of new lines and then finances the projects through the REIT.

As a REIT, the company can offer stable regulated cash-flows and is looking to grow the business through future transmission development. The company plans to spend $200 million to $250 million each year in and around their existing service territory in Texas, as well as explore the development of projects outside of the state in areas such as the Southwest. Regarding growth, Mileski stated, We see a path to growing per share cash distributions and dividends by 10-15%.

NextEra YieldCo IPo closed in JulyMark Hickson, senior vice president of corporate development

and strategic initiatives at NextEra Energy Resources, spelled out the details of the other potential financing mechanism being a YieldCo. NextEra created its YieldCo, NextEra Energy Partners, about a year ago and closed its IPO in early July. The IPO raised over $400 million.

From a corporate tax perspective the entity looks like a master limited partnership, but is taxed like a corporation, which provides a lot of flexibility as to how the YieldCo can define and select its assets.

Stemming from the view that the most opportunity for adding asset value is through the development phase, project development financing is done at the parent company level where NextEra Energy Resources typically funds through half equity and half loan. At project completion the asset is channeled into the YieldCo and the capital is recycled back into subsequent projects.

NextEras focus with the YieldCo is to invest in regulated and long-term contracted assets. Currently the entitys investments are limited to wind and solar assets where about two-thirds is wind and the rest solar; by 2016 NextEra plans to grow wind investments to 10 GW and solar to about 1.5-2 GW. Hickson said that they are interested in financing transmission through the new entity and the parent company currently has about a $700 million investment in the Lone Star transmission line, which was energized in early 2013 as part of the CREZ in Texas.

Project financing for Lone Star came from NextEra Energy Resources and received permanent financing about the second quarter of 2014, just before the YieldCo IPO. While its financing took place prior to the YieldCo, Hickson noted that the financing falls in line with the capital structure of the new entity and that the YieldCo is a viable long-term financing tool for transmission.

Citing the trend towards long-distance transmission for integrating renewables, one audience member inquired if these structures are better suited for financing long-distance projects. Mileski replied that he doesnt think financing has been the

Advertisement

October2015RFPforNYISOWholesaleElectricityandCapacity

ConEdisonandOrangeandRocklandUtilitieswillbe

holdingastructuredauctioneventtoprocurewholesaleelectricityandcapacityinNYISOfortheperiodbetween

January1,2016April30,2019.

TheIndicativeBidRoundistentativelyscheduledforJune25,2015andwillbehostedbyEnerNOContheEnerNOC

Exchange.

InordertoparticipateintheIndicativeBidRound,counterpartiesmustsubmitaNoticeof

IntentbythedeadlinenotedintheEventSchedule.

Foradditionalinformationregardingthisevent,pleasevisit:

https://conedison.wesplatform.comOrcontactEnerNOCat:

[email protected]

ConEdisonRFPAnnouncement



limiting factor in transmission development. If a project is at the final stages of development, chances are that it will be able to attract dollars. Mileski said that for the longer lines and inter-regional lines the real challenge is cost allocation and that financing is not part of the picture until those issues are figured out.

A follow-up question then asked if expanding boundaries of centrally operated grid markets and bringing in traditionally non-market stakeholders can benefit financing, namely the cost allocation issue. The panelists responded that the expansion of ISO markets can improve the situation to the degree that the ISOs can provide processes for stakeholders to expediently define cost allocation.

Jonathan Nelson

Plea for more CFTC funding falls flat in house billDespite repeatedly making the case on Capitol Hill that the

Commodity Futures Trading Commission cannot adequately oversee the $400 trillion US swaps market at current funding levels, CFTC Chairman Timothy Massad appears not to have persuaded House appropriators to find more spending for the commission.

Legislation released by the House Appropriations Committee Wednesday for a subcommittee markup Thursday would keep CFTC funding flat at $250 million, the level enacted for 2015. That is $72 million below the FY-16 request from the administration, which wanted a 29% increase.

Massad has raised alarms in recent testimony that CFTCs budget has not kept pace with growth in markets it oversees and new information technology challenges it faces, particularly with the rise in automated trading. He also pleaded for more money for surveillance and enforcement, calling attention to the CFTCs troubles getting to all of its clearing members and exchanges for regular, yearly examinations.

For those worried about CFTC rules hitting commercial end-users of derivative products, Massad has said more funding was needed to allow him to follow through on his priority of addressing those concerns.

But, while the House bills authors were able to find meaty funding increases for some discretionary programs, such as the Food and Drug Administration and rural development programs (up $30 million and $86 million respectively), it did not do the same for the regulator of futures, options and swaps.

Agriculture bill to see cuts of $3.8 billionCFTC funding is included in the FY-16 Agriculture

Appropriations bill, which as proposed would see steep overall cuts of $3.8 billion below the FY-15 enacted level with a modest discretionary funding cut of $175 million or 1%. The measure goes before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies for consideration and amendment Thursday.

One-third of the increase sought by CFTC would have gone to data and technology investments. The administration had sought $63.1 million and 50 full-time employees for data and technology support activities, an increase of $26.9 million and 15 FTE over the FY-15 level.

The House bill identifies at least $50 million in data and technology, but specifies the funds would be available for the purchase of information technology, as opposed to salaries and expenses. The CFTCs Office of Inspector General last November had found the commission had previously shifted funding from information technology to salaries and expenses without proper authority in the FY-13 appropriations bill.

Of the $50 million, the House bill specifies that at least $3 million would go toward the OIG, slightly more than the CFTC watchdog had requested. The bill also caps CFTC official reception and representation expenses at $3,000 and expenses for hosting meetings with foreign officials at $25,000.

Public Citizen financial policy advocate Bart Naylor criticized the move to keep CFTC funding flat.

If members of Congress are truly concerned about protecting farmers and ranchers from manipulators, they should fully fund the cops. This isnt Andy Griffths Mayberry R.F.D., he said.

A spokesperson for the committees Republican majority had no immediate comment on the proposed funding level.

Maya Weber

Texas bills tie wind, solar to desalination projectsEnactment of two Texas bills will encourage the development

of water desalination projects as well as wind and solar energy to power the projects, advocates said Wednesday.

Governor Greg Abbott, a Republican, earlier this week signed into law H.B. 2031 and S.B. 991. The first bill establishes a regulatory framework for the development of coastal power generation/desalination projects aimed at providing needed

RGGI carbon allowance futures, Jun 16 ($/allowance)ICE Settlement Volume

Dec15 V14 5.73 0Dec16 V14 5.89 0Dec17 V14 6.06 0Dec18 V14 6.24 0Dec15 V15 5.73 0Dec16 V15 5.89 0Dec17 V15 6.06 0Dec18 V15 6.24 0Dec15 V16 5.73 0Dec16 V16 5.89 0Dec17 V16 6.06 0Dec18 V16 6.24 0

The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative is a carbon cap-and-trade program for power generators in nine Northeast and Mid-Atlantic US states. One RGGI allowance is equivalent to one short ton of CO2. The volume listed is the number of futures contracts traded. Each futures contract represents 1,000 RGGI allowances.

Daily CSAPR allowance assessments, Jun 17CSAPR ($/st) 2015 Range Mid 2016 Range Mid

SO2 Group 1 5.00-10.00 7.50 2.50-5.00 3.75SO2 Group 2 25.00-150.00 87.50 20.00-145.00 82.50NOx Annual 130.00-145.00 137.50 125.00-140.00 132.50NOx Seasonal 135.00-150.00 142.50 130.00-145.00 137.50

All prices in $/st



generating capacity and potable water. The second bill directs Texass General Land Office in consultation with the Texas Water Development Board to undertake a study on the use of wind and solar power to run desalination plants.

We need to start thinking about water supply the same way we think about electric power in terms of reliability, Kyle Frazier, executive director of the Texas Desalination Association, said Wednesday. Recent heavy rains have eased near-term concerns about water supply, but meteorologists believe the weather is likely to become increasingly volatile, with long periods of too little or too much precipitation, Frazier said.

We need to take more of a portfolio approach to planning for future water needs, Frazier said, adding that in Texas this will likely include a combination of desalination plants, surface water, conservation and re-use.

According to a U.S. Bureau of Reclamation report released earlier this month, there are 35 municipal desalination plants that together have the capacity to process 73 million gallons a day; almost all of the existing plants are in inland areas and treat brackish water.

The San Antonio Water System is building the first 10-million-gallon-a-day phase of what will be largest inland desalination plant in the Western Hemisphere; two subsequent phases will increase the plants capacity to 25 million gallons a day by 2025.

Several other large desalination projects are under development in Texas. For example, the Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority and the states General Land Office have been studying building one or more 300-MW, gas-fired combined-cycle units at a Gulf Coast site that would provide power for an adjoining desalination plant and when Electric Reliability Council of Texas energy prices warrant ramping down desalination activity and ramping up sales into the ERCOT market. Other desalination projects also are in various stages of planning, Frazier said.

Bill to study wind and solar output for desalinationS.B. 991 directs the General Land Office to undertake a study

on the potential for using state-owned land to support the development of wind farms and solar facilities whose output would be used to power desalination projects. According to the new law, the study must be completed by the end of next year.

Texas Representative Lyle Larson, Republican of San Antonio, who sponsored the House version of the bill, said Wednesday, Brackish desalination is going to be key to Texass future water management strategy. Texas is the national leader in wind energy and has the highest solar energy potential in the United States. We need to harness these sources to develop a robust water supply from the brackish component of our aquifers.

The bills Senate sponsor, Senator Jose Rodriguez, Democrat of El Paso, said that the fossil-fueled electricity production used to power desalination plants is very water-intensive, so were using water to make water. He added, With the efforts the state has made to develop renewable energy, including on state lands, and the increased focus on developing desalination of brackish water, there are unique synergies that warrant further investigation.

The Environmental Defense Fund said in a statement that it

welcomes the enactment of SB 991. Clean energy is a perfect complement to desalination, as it requires zero water to produce electricity, saving our current water supply for other purposes, the group said.

Texas already has more than 12,000 MW of wind capacity in operation, but has been relatively slow in developing its solar potential. However, CPS Energy the municipal utility in San Antonio has contracted to have OCI Solar develop a total of 400 MW and sell the output to the muni. Also, Austin Energy, the muni in Texass state capital, already has contracted for nearly 200 MW of solar power and is currently reviewing the responses to a recent solicitation for another 600 MW.

Housley Carr

Florida utilities slam voter initiative on solarFloridas four investor-owned utilities and the states

attorney general are urging the states highest court to throw out a planned November 2016 voter initiative to give businesses and individuals the constitutional right to produce up to 2 MW of solar power and sell it directly to others on the same property or to neighbors.

In briefs to the Florida Supreme Court, Attorney General Pam Bondi and in a joint filing Florida Power & Light, Duke Energy Florida, Tampa Electric and Gulf Power said the wording of the initiative is misleading and, if approved, the measure would undo regulations that protect the public.

Bondi, a Republican, in her brief said the proposals title and summary hide the amendments core purpose, which is to remove a class of utilities from the jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission, ending the public protections it provides. She said that [r]ather than explain this significant change, neither the title nor the summary even mentions the [PSC].

The initiative places a class of utility providers namely, solar power developers beyond the reach of utility regulators, Bondi said.

In their joint brief, the four IOUs said the voter initiative violates the single-subject rule governing such referenda because it substantially alters or performs the functions of multiple branches and levels of government, and it amends more than one provision of the Florida Constitution.

The utilities also said the initiatives title and ballot summary improperly use political rhetoric, mislead the voter through substantive inconsistencies between the summary and text, and hide the ball by failing to disclose to voters the current state of the law of utility regulation and the sweeping changes this initiative would create. The court must strike the initiative from the ballot.

In a statement, Floridians for Solar Choice, which is sponsoring the voter initiative, said the measure meets the single-subject requirement and that its title and summary accurately inform voters of the amendments purpose.

We look forward to Supreme Court approval of the clearly-stated petition language in order to place solar choice on the ballot in 2016, said Tony Perfetti, chairman of Floridians for



Solar Choice. We expected that the petition would upset the status quo and generate opposition; however, we believe that briefs filed by opponents dont present a viable threat to the success of our effort to bring free market principles and consumer choice to all Floridians.

Under current Florida law, only utilities can sell power to others. Perfetti has said that if the initiative is approved by voters, scores of rooftop and ground-mounted solar projects could be developed and their owners could sell power to others, including other tenants in office buildings, strip malls and apartment complexes.

The constitutional amendment, if enacted, also would appear to open the door to third-party leasing of solar facilities, a practice pioneered by SolarCity and other companies in other states. Proponents of the proposed constitutional amendment already have secured more than 88,000 signatures but will need another 600,000 by early next year to ensure that the initiative is placed on the November 2016 ballot.

Florida solar development not extensiveOnly a limited amount of utility solar power has been

developed in Florida, in part because with only one exception neither the Florida Legislature nor the states PSC has approved cost recovery of solar and other renewable projects whose power costs are higher than a utilitys avoided costs.

The only exception was a 2008 state law backed by Florida Power & Light that allowed cost recovery for up to 110 MW of solar capacity. After the law was enacted, FPL proposed and built two solar photovoltaic facilities totaling 35 MW and a 75-MW concentrating solar power facility at a total cost of more than $600 million.

In 2010, the PSC rejected Tampa Electrics plan to enter into a 25-year power purchase agreement for the output of a 25-MW solar project planned by Energy 5.0; the commission said it rejected the plan because solar power costs under the PPA would be higher than the utilitys avoided costs.

In recent months, however, utility interest in developing solar projects has been increasing. In January, FPL unveiled plans to build three 74-MW solar projects, and in April DEF said in the new 10-year site plan it filed with the PSC that the utility plans to add 500 MW of solar capacity to its portfolio over the planning period.

Also, Gulf Power has agreed to buy the output of solar projects totaling 120 MW at three military bases, and Tampa Electric is building a 2-MW solar facility at Tampa International Airport.

The Florida Supreme Court plans to hear oral arguments on the voter initiative matter in early September.

Housley Carr

PJM reforms wont save Illinois nukes: ExelonPJMs proposal to reward high-performing generating units in

its capacity auctions could relieve some of the financial pressure on Exelons nuclear power plants in Illinois, but such capacity reforms alone are not enough to prevent them from closing

prematurely, the company said in a statement late Tuesday.The capacity performance, or CP, proposal was approved June

10 by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. It will be incorporated in PJMs annual capacity auction for 2018-2019, which begins August 10, PJM said in a statement June 10.

The CP proposal would reward units with high performance and penalize those that fail to perform, with the intent of reducing price spikes and other system disruptions during key moments, such as extreme weather and high demand. PJM said in its December 12 proposal that the reforms aim to ensure that resources committed as capacity to meet the PJM regions reliability needs will deliver the promised energy and reserves when called upon in emergencies, providing the reliability that the region expects and requires.

Exelon supported the proposal, which would benefit its nuclear plants because they are large baseload units intended to operate at or near full capacity at all times.

The company did not say in its statement Tuesday, provided by spokesman Paul Elsberg, how much additional revenue it expected to receive from the 2018-2019 auction as a result of the proposal, or how much would be needed to make its Illinois units economically viable.

We think that PJMs rule changes could relieve some of the financial pressure on challenged nuclear plants, but we will not know the results until the grid operators hold auctions this summer, Exelon said. At that point, we will have a clearer picture of the actual impacts and be able to have informed discussions with stakeholders in Illinois, although the results of this first capacity auction wont be sufficient to predict the long-term effects on nuclear plant economics.

Exelon CEO Christopher Crane said in an interview May 13 that the company will need to decide by September whether to close some or all of the five nuclear units at its Byron, Clinton and Quad Cities plants in Illinois.

Capacity reforms will benefit all highly reliable power plants, including nuclear plants, which operate over 90% of the time in all weather conditions. However, these reforms are not a solution to the economic challenges facing Illinois nuclear plants and alone are not enough to prevent them from closing prematurely, Exelon said Tuesday.

In fact, the most challenged unit, Clinton, is not in PJM and is not affected by these rule changes. These reforms fix only one problem with current market design and do not address the need for a level playing field for all low-carbon electricity resources, the company said.

Exelon backs low-carbon billTo address that issue, Exelon has supported proposed

legislation in the Illinois General Assembly that would establish a low-carbon portfolio standard for the states two biggest electric utilities, Commonwealth Edison, an Exelon subsidiary, and Ameren. That legislation would establish a surcharge on electricity used in the state that would be paid to some carbon-free generators, particularly Exelons nuclear units.

Hearings on the bill were held in May in both the Illinois



House and Senate, but a vote has not been scheduled in either chamber. The assemblys regular session was scheduled to end May 31 but has now been extended indefinitely.

Exelon said that prospects for the legislation are not promising.

While the legislative session has been extended, it does not appear that any energy-related legislation is being considered at this time. Nevertheless, we will continue our dialogue with Illinois policymakers regarding necessary energy policy reforms in Illinois, the company said Tuesday.

Cara Hendrickson, chief of the public interest division in the office of Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, testified before the state senates Energy Committee May 6 that the legislation is simply a bail-out bill for Exelon, and its bad public policy.

Hendrickson said adopting the portfolio standard bill is premature because there are significant changes on the horizon on the federal level, and some that may frankly address the problem.

One of those changes is the CP proposal, then awaiting FERC approval, which she said would triple capacity charges in PJM. As a result, Exelon would benefit to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars ... as soon as this summer, Hendrickson said.

Steven Dolley

NYISo eyes distributed resources for future gridAs New York reforms its energy system, distributed resources

will likely play a much larger role in the grid, the New York Independent System Operator said Monday in a report on rightsizing the grid for the future.

We cant take a one-size-fits-all approach to shaping the grid of the future. We need to bolster the strength and stability of the centralized grid while we foster the flexibility and resilience offered by distributed energy resources, Stephen Whitley, NYISOs president and CEO, said.

The electric system faces complex challenges presented by a proliferation of customer-sited solar generation systems, the development of community-level microgrids, the expansion of combined heat and power systems and other distributed energy resources, the report said.

Wholesale markets also will need to evolve to address the challenges of distributed energy resources in a similar way to the changes they made to integrate grid-scale renewable resources, the report said.

As distributed resources grow, they can be expected to modify the load profile. The NYISOs real-time and long-range load forecasting techniques will consequently need data currently hidden behind-the-meter, the report said.

Distributed energy resources may evolve to serve as price responsive load or supply capacity and ancillary services to the wholesale market through aggregators. Advances in metering and communications infrastructure will be essential to the integration of distributed energy resources, the report said.

NYISO expects the year-to-year growth in overall power use to

be flat for the next decade, but peak demand is expected to grow, the report said. Distributed energy resources coupled with energy efficiency programs are expected to reduce the growth of peak demand on the New York system by more than 2,700 MW by 2025, the report said. The resources also are expected to lower annual energy use by more than 14,000 GWh in 2025, it said.

About 57% of the states distributed energy is combined heat and power followed by solar PV with 41%. Energy storage lags, representing 2% of the distributed generation portfolio, the report said.

Finding the right-sized grid and the best mix of power resources to most effectively provide essential electric service is now a more complex endeavor as New York strives to address its future energy needs, the report said.

Regulations will impact 33,800 MWMore than 70% of all proposed generating capacity in New

York are gas-fired or dual fuel projects, the report said. Currently gas-fired projects account for 56% of New Yorks generating capacity.

The NYISO and its stakeholders are exploring the creation of additional market-based incentives for fuel supply assurance during periods of summer and winter peak demand that can stress both the electric and natural gas delivery systems, the report said, noting the energy price increase to $69.30/MWh in 2014, up from $59.13/MWh the year before.

New and proposed environmental regulations are estimated to affect 33,800 MW of generation in New York, more than 80% of the states capacity, the report said. A reliability safety valve is needed to provide sufficient flexibility to address circumstances such as metropolitan New Yorks reliance on dual-fuel resources when reliability may be at risk, the report said.

Removing barriers to the efficient flow of power between regional electric systems is vital to improving the flexibility in grid operations and enhancing wholesale market efficiency, the report said.

NYISO estimates that for the 2015/2016 capacity year, capacity costs in New York will be about $400 million lower from the increase in supply driven by the creation of the Lower Hudson Valley capacity zone.

NYISO also is considering the creation of additional market-based incentives for resources to be available to meet the states load when demand is high on a region wide basis or there is uncertainty in the fuel supply. Although the current market designs already incent performance, consideration of fuel assurance is increasingly important as the electric systems reliance on natural gas-fired resources grows, the report said.

Upgrades to the transmission system to mitigate the physical limitations on the system are now under consideration, the report said.

NYISO, in collaboration with market participants, stakeholders, regulators, and policy makers, is working to address emerging challenges as the power grid and electricity markets continue to evolve, the report said.

Mary Powers



Published May 27 in the Royal Society of Chemistrys Energy & Environmental Science journal, the study adds that a mixture of solar power residential and commercial photovoltaic, utility-scale PV and concentrated solar power could meet more than 45% of the nations needs, while a mixture of hydroelectric, geothermal, wave and tidal generation could meet the remainder.

I think the Stanford study was very well done, and they did a very good job of documenting their assumptions, so people can play what-if games, if they want, said Robert Hebner, director of the University of Texas Center for Electromechanics. Its valid in its significant assumptions.

Gary Ackerman, Western Power Trading Forum executive director, had a different opinion.

The paper is laughable, Ackerman said. This should have been published on April 1 it would be more fitting. And as for the authors, I have never heard of any of them.

The authors are Mark Jacobson, Mark DeLucchi, Guillame Bazaouin, Zack Bauer, Christa Heavey, Emma Fisher, Sean Morris, Diniana Piekutowski, Taylor Vencill and Tim Yeskoo. Jacobson, the lead researcher, is a Stanford professor of civil and environmental engineering, and Delucchi is a research scientist at the University of California at Berkeleys Transportation Sustainability Research Center. All of the other authors participate

100% renewables study draws jokes...from page 1 in Stanfords Atmosphere/Energy Program.The study excludes biofuel and nuclear power from its

hypothetical carbon-free future of 2050.Biofuels are not included because their combustion

produces air pollution at rates on the same order as fossil fuels and their lifecycle carbon emissions are highly uncertain but definitely larger than those of WWS technologies, the report states.

As biofuels have much larger water and land requirements than wind, water and solar power, and as photosynthesis is about one twentieth as efficient as solar PV, researchers considered biofuels inappropriate for inclusion, the study concludes.

In the lifecycle of nuclear reactor planning, construction, operation, and decommissioning, it releases 9-25 times more pollutants and greenhouse gases per kWh generated than wind half from the refining of uranium during the lifetime of nuclear operations plus the construction and decommissioning energy required, and half due to the time lag between planning and operation of a nuclear plant (10-19 years) versus two to five years for a wind or solar farm, Jacobson said in an email Thursday.

Other factors for excluding nuclear power are the lack of a radioactive waste disposal site and the risk of nuclear reactor meltdown, Jacobson said.

The Stanford study concludes that conversion of all energy sources to wind, water or solar power would save each US resident about $260 a year in energy costs and about $1,500 a year in health costs. The conversions air quality benefits would cut annual air pollution-related deaths by about 46,000 in 2050.

Thus, 100% conversions are technically and economically feasible with little downside, the report states.

A complete restructuringThe studys roadmaps for each states conversion to 100%

renewable power may therefore reduce social and political barriers to implementing clean-energy policies, the report states.

The likelihood of the US adopting and accomplishing 100% renewable power for its energy needs depends on societal willpower, Jacobson said in an email.

If we want to change, we will; if we dont, we wont, Jacobson said. I believe if people are aware of what is possible and what the benefits and costs are, they will opt to go forward and make the change.

The costs are substantial. A Platts analysis of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission filings for the nations largest utilities show they maintain generation assets on their balance sheets with a combined net book value of almost $666 billion.

Most replacement will occur through natural retirement over the 15-year life of vehicles and 35-year life of power plants, Jacobson said. However, there will be stranded assets, but those assets are causing enormous health and climate costs that the companies owning them are not paying, so there is no loss to society of shutting down the plants now. These assets are also restraining job growth, since conversion will create net jobs in the US, so not converting will prevent growth in jobs and shorten peoples lives due to the higher air pollution resulting from the

Advertisement

WHAT WOULD YOU DO WITHAN EXTRA MARGIN POINT?

Ask us at www.wgl.comWE BELIEVE IN THE POWER OF A QUESTION.

WGL is here to answer your organizations energy questions with solutions that impact your bottom line. Answers that can help you conserve both energy and money.

we are:

#askwgl

www.wgl.com



current infrastructure.But Jim Carson, CEO of Risquant Energy, an electricity market

consultancy based in St. Paul, Minnesota, said the Stanford study is a joke, an academic answer to an economic problem.

We just cant do it, Carson said. Theres not that much money. Theyre talking about trillions of dollars. Theyre talking about completely restructuring the energy industry. This is as big a transformation as going from horses and buggies to automobiles in 35 years. Its just not going to happen in that short of a time frame.

However, Nat Treadway, managing partner of the DEFG energy consultancy in Dallas, said the world has been moving toward more renewable energy and away from fossil fuels since 1970.

So perhaps the remarkable observation is that traditional fossil fuel companies have been able to outpace renewable energy for the past 45 years, Treadway said. The year 2050 is 35 years away, so if the authors projections hold true they likely will not then we will have observed an 80-year industry transformation, not a 35-year event. Innovations in fossil fuel production will likely stretch this transformation toward the end of this century.

hawaii is moving along the pathNeil McAndrews, an electricity market consultant based in

Austin, Texas, said only a climate disaster of biblical proportions could cause the 50 states to convert to 100% renewable power by 2050.

I think it is very unlikely that any state achieves this by 2050, McAndrews said in an email. I do think that it is likely that they become greater than 80% carbon free.

One region, the Pacific Northwest, already gets over 80% of its electricity from renewable power, mainly from hydroelectric and wind power, a Platts analysis of US Energy Information Administration data shows.

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory in 2012 issued a study showing that the US could rely on renewable energy for 80% of its electricity needs by 2050.

I think that this is a federal/national/global issue, and that states will conform with national rules and regulations, McAndrews said in an email. If the US commits to being carbon neutral, so too will all of the states. Individual state policies are basically designed to attract economic development.

Hawaii recently enacted a law calling for a 100% renewable portfolio standard, including biofuel, for electricity not transportation by the year 2045.

Vermont last week enacted legislation for a 55% renewable power standard by 2015 and a 75% RPS by 2032.

Californias state government plans to establish a 50% RPS by 2030, and the California Independent System Operator is actively studying what impact that will have on grid reliability, said Steven Greenlee, Cal-ISO spokesman.

The study results are expected by years end, but some preliminary results may be available in the fall, Greenlee said in an email.

The PJM Interconnection released a study in March 2014 showing that the independent system operator could

accommodate up to 30% renewable energy, said Ken Schuyler, PJM manager of renewable services.

PJMs size and diversity, encompassing all or parts of 13 states and the District of Columbia, helps the ISO cope with the intermittency of renewable power, Shuyler said, as the variability of power in one location is often offset by an opposite variability at a different location.

The PJM study did not consider the capital costs of overbuilding enough wind and solar to maintain such a high percentage of reliable renewable power and upgrading transmission to move renewable power from high production zones to high consumption zones, Schuyler said.

Once you build [the renewable generation], theyre cheaper to operate, so energy prices were lower in the PJM study, Schuyler said Tuesday.

Risquant Energys Carson said the transmission costs of a 100% renewable United States could be huge.

[The Stanford researchers] advocate for an expansion of wind generation in the Midwest that dwarfs even the most aggressive pie-in-the-sky plans today, Carson said. That would require a truly enormous expansion of transmission in that region.

Storage is keyThe University of Texas Hebner said economics will likely

drive decisions on whether any particular state or region would move toward a future of deriving a high percentage of its power from renewable sources.

Right now, the US and most developed countries are making the investments necessary to drive down the cost of renewable energy, Hebner said.

However, each of the 50 states decides how it will meet its electricity needs from one to 10 years into the future, Hebner said.

I would expect renewables to grow, but grow slowly until the world reaches a tipping point in terms of [concerns about] global warming, Hebner said. Until then, there will be very incremental change. I dont think were going to stop using fossil fuels any time soon. Its all economics. If we could cut our electric bills in half by going all renewable, we would do it.

Economics favor Hawaii converting to renewable power sooner, Hebner said, because its current power prices are high, driven by high generator fuel prices. Hebner said Nome, Alaska, is considering expanding the use of solar power because importing fuel oil is so expensive.

But Eric Smith, associate director of the Tulane Energy Institute said the Stanford study, in effect, defies the economic and practical realities of todays technology by postulating, for example, the use of utility-scale energy storage.

These people have been smoking something, Smith said. Utility-grade storage for intermittent sources dont exist. These are the inconvenient truths that havent been addressed. When you suspend the laws of both physics and economics things tend to turn out badly.

Hebner said economics is why places such as Texas, with its abundant fossil fuel reserves, may not achieve a 100% renewable power future, Hebner said.



But Cyrus Reed, conservation director of the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club, said Texas may surprise those who think the state would skip the renewable revolution, despite our long-term dependence upon coal, oil, gas and nuclear.

For one, we have shown within [the Electric Reliability Council of Texas] that since 1999 (when we deregulated the energy market), we have gone from nothing to roughly 11% renewables in these fifteen years and the latest projections suggest we will get to 20% renewables by 2020 if not before, Reed said in an email.

A Georgetown, Texas, municipal utility is already getting to 100% renewable, and Austin Energy has a plan in place to get to 55% by 2025, Reed said.

If we can change our market to allow storage, distributed energy and demand response to truly use our market and participate in our market, I think we could realistically bump up that number to perhaps 50% by 2030, Reed said. As aging plants come off -line, that percentage should naturally increase.

Mark Watson

said in an email Wednesday. It was our hope that FERC would provide clarification of the rules and processes that PJM would use in competitive solicitations.

PJM spokesman Paula DuPont-Kidd said in an email Wednesday that the commissions decision validates our treatment of the Artificial Island competitive window during our transition to implementation of Order 1000.

How to address issues around Artificial Island has been a source of conflict for some time. Most recently, PJM staff recommended that the grid operators board select a proposal submitted by LS Power, under which PSEG and Pepco Holdings would also have a portion of the work. Staff last year had recommended that a PSE&G proposal be selected, but the board deferred action and then invited the players involved to modify their proposals.

The board has yet to act on staffs latest recommendations.In its January complaint (EL15-40), PSE&G argued that PJM

strayed from its rules for solicitation processes, saying that the grid operator modified the proposals unilaterally and should have reposted the solicitation if it did not find a suitable project. PJM disagreed, saying that it complied with its tariff and that its rules for competitive solicitations under Order 1000, FERCs landmark transmission planning and cost allocation rule, were not in effect at the time the solicitation began.

FERC agreed with PJM, saying that it is undisputed that PJM opened the Artificial Island proposal window on April 29, 2013, eight months prior to the effective date of the Order 1000 tariff provisions. FERC also said that PJM complied with its tariff in conducting the solicitation, noting the numerous steps the grid operator took to explain its actions and act in a nondiscriminatory fashion.

There is no evidence in the record that PJMs conducting of the Artificial Island solicitation process was inconsistent with its

FERC denies Artificial Island complaint...from page 1

pre-Order 1000 procedures, FERC said.In a concurrence with the order, Commissioner Cheryl LaFleur

highlighted the importance of using competitive transmission development, noting that processes consistent with Order 1000 or even the prospect of competition has already led to a host of innovative rate structures and cost containment proposals that, if properly designed, could provide significant benefits for customers.

Said LaFleur, I believe that these efforts should be encouraged, both by the commission and in the regional transmission planning processes, to foster a dynamic environment for new transmission development.

She went on to say that as regions around the country gain experience with competitive processes, I encourage them to learn from their and other regions experiences to ensure that their procedures evolve as appropriate to help realize the full benefits of competitive transmission development for customers.

FERC had earlier this year rejected a motion by PJM to dismiss or postpone the complaint until after a final decision on the solicitation had been made. While PJM said the complaint was premature, FERC said that it would benefit from a full record that addresses the allegations in the complaint.

Bobby McMahon

quarter were up 14% compared to the first quarter of 2014.In November, Exelon announced it was buying the retail unit of

Integrys Energy Group. As well, while Exelons nuclear generation of roughly 36 million MWh was flat year-over-year, Exelon Generation saw its sales in PJM Interconnection increase 10 million MWh.

NRG Energy, also with a 14% increase in quarterly sales, snuck past Shell Energy North America to become the second ranked wholesale power seller in the first quarter. NRG reported a sales total of 63.27 million MWh. Shell, at the same time, had a 4.1% year-over-year increase, and reported sales of 59.12 million MWh, giving it a third place ranking.

The fourth ranked wholesaler was NextEra Energy Resources, which, like Exelon, NRG and Calpine, limits what it reports on its Electric Reliability Council of Texas market activities to what it generates in ERCOT, to the exclusion of what it might trade.

Nonetheless, NextEra reported to FERC total sales of 43.19 million MWh in the first quarter, a slight 1.1% increase over the previous years first-quarter sales. NextEra also ranks as the number one wind power seller in the country, with 7.56 million MWh of reported wholesale wind power sold. That total, however, was down 8.5% in the first quarter of 2015 compared to the first quarter of 2014.

Calpine, ranked fifth, saw its reported sales increase just 0.2% to a total of 37.37 million MWh.

Some big increasesSeveral firms showed particularly large increases in sales in the

first quarter, which reflected either acquisitions or the new way in which sales in the Southwest Power Pool and the Midcontinent Independent System Operator are being reported.

Exelon, NRG top wholesale trading...from page 1



In 2014, Citigroup bought the trading books of Deutsche Bank and Credit Suisse, which bolstered their overall energy commodity trading operations.

In the f

Stanford Study Calls for 100 Percent Renewables by 2050 - Megawatt Daily

Documents

Transcript of Stanford Study Calls for 100 Percent Renewables by 2050 - Megawatt Daily