Duke Energy Corporation (Holding Company) · NYSE:DUK

Duke Energy Corporation (Holding Company) — Corporate Update (July 2013)

38 slides from Duke Energy Corporation (Holding Company)'s corporate update, Jul 19, 2013

  1. Slide 1: 2013 Integrated Resource Plan

    2013 Integrated Resource Plan Stakeholder Workshop #4 July 19, 2013 Plainfield, IN

  2. Slide 2: Welcome

    Doug Esamann, State President- Indiana, Duke Energy Welcome 2

  3. Slide 3: Welcome

    Welcome  Safety message  Why are we here today?  Objectives for stakeholder process  Introduce the facilitator 3

  4. Slide 4: Why are we here today?

    Why are we here today?  Duke Energy Indiana developing 2013 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP)  Proactively complying with proposed Commission IRP rule  Today is the fourth stakeholder workshops 4

  5. Slide 5: Objectives for Stakeholder Process

    Objectives for Stakeholder Process  Listen: Understand concerns and objectives.  Inform: Increase stakeholders’ understanding of the IRP process, key assumptions, and challenges we face.  Consider: Provide a forum for productive stakeholder feedback at key points in the IRP process to inform Duke

  6. Slide 6: The Facilitator

    The Facilitator  Duke Energy Indiana hired Dr. Marty Rozelle of The Rozelle Group and her colleagues to:  Help us develop the IRP stakeholder engagement process  Facilitate and document stakeholder workshops 6

  7. Slide 7: Agenda & Introductions

    Marty Rozelle, President, The Rozelle Group Agenda & Introductions 7

  8. Slide 8: Engagement Process Overview

    Engagement Process Overview  Third party, unbiased facilitator  Involving stakeholders from the beginning of the IRP development  Four stakeholder workshops  Informative presentations and interactive workshop exercises  Summaries on IRP website (www.duke-energy.com/in-irp) Workshop #1 Workshop

  9. Slide 9: Agenda

    Agenda 8:30 Registration & Continental Breakfast 9:00 Welcome from Doug Esamann 9:10 Agenda Review and Introductions 9:25 Review of Workshops 1 - 3 9:40 Stakeholder Feedback & Duke Energy Indiana Responses 10:15 Scenario Review, Modeling Methodology & Portfolios Discussion 11:45 Lunch 12:30 Portfoli

  10. Slide 10: Ground rules

    Ground rules  All agree to act in good faith with open minds  Start on time and stay on schedule  Raise your hand to be recognized by the facilitator  Be concise and stick to the topics on the meeting agenda  Respect others and do not interrupt  Turn off phones  Since we are using Live Meetin

  11. Slide 11: Introductions

    Introductions  Participants  Duke Energy 11

  12. Slide 12: Review of Workshops 1 - 3

    Marty Rozelle, President, The Rozelle Group Review of Workshops 1 - 3 12

  13. Slide 13: Review of Workshops 1-3

    Review Workshop 1 - 3 Workshop 1  Background on IRP process  Discussion of Driving Forces in order to develop Scenarios Workshop 2  Discussion of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy  Scenario development exercise Workshop 3  Discussion of Load Forecasting & Market Fundamentals  Modeling assum

  14. Slide 14: Stakeholder Feedback & Duke Responses

    Scott Park, Director- Midwest IRP Stakeholder Feedback & Duke Responses 14

  15. Slide 15: Stakeholder Feedback

    Stakeholder Feedback  Received 43 comments and recommendations  Highlights to be addressed in presentation  Written responses provided to comments and recommendations 15

  16. Slide 16: Stakeholder Feedback & Responses

    Stakeholder Feedback & Responses  Live Meeting is being provided  The economics of retiring units are analyzed as part of the IRP  Over one hundred model runs are being conducted as part of the IRP  CO2  We believe the range of carbon prices in the 3 scenarios provides sufficient breadth of pos

  17. Slide 17: Scenario Review, Modeling Methodology & Portfolios Discussion

    Jim Hobbs, Senior Portfolio Analyst Scenario Review, Modeling Methodology & Portfolios Discussion 17

  18. Slide 18: Scenarios

    Scenarios The results of the stakeholder scenario exercise led to the consolidation of 6 scenarios to 3 scenarios 1. Low Regulation Case 2. Duke Energy Reference Case 3. Environmental Focus Case 18

  19. Slide 19: Modeling Methodology

    Modeling Methodology  As discussed in the last stakeholder meeting, a set of internally consistent model inputs were developed for each of the 3 scenarios  Once the model inputs have been loaded into the capacity expansion model, developing portfolios is a two step process 1. The economic viabilit

  20. Slide 20: Duke Energy Indiana Resource Definitions

    Duke Energy Indiana Resource Definitions STATION NAME UNIT ABBREV MW WR 2-5 350 Wabash River WR 6 318 Cayuga CAY 995 Gallagher GAL 280 GIB 1-4 2,512 Gibson GIB 5 310 Various Old CTs 166 Combined Cycle CC 340 Combust Turbine CT 200 Nuclear N 280 -WR 2-5 modeled as retired on 4/16/15. -WR 6 Coal model

  21. Slide 21: Low Regulation Scenario – Preliminary Portfolio

    Low Regulation Scenario – Preliminary Portfolio Generation Impacts 2014 - 2018 2019 - 2023 2024 - 2028 2029 - 2033 Retirements WR 2-6 Coal Old Oil CTs Additions WR 6 Gas, CT CT CT CC Energy Efficiency 2018 2023 2028 2033 MWs Peak Contribution 190 350 520 690 GWHs 1,000 1,900 2,800 3,700 % Retail Sal

  22. Slide 22: Reference Case Scenario – Preliminary Portfolio

    Reference Case Scenario – Preliminary Portfolio Duke Energy Indiana Example Resource Portfolio - Reference Case Scenario Generation Impacts 2014 - 2018 2019 - 2023 2024 - 2028 2029 - 2033 Retirements WR 2-6 Coal Old Oil CTs Further Analysis GAL, GIB5 Additions WR 6 Gas CT CC, CT CC Energy Efficiency

  23. Slide 23: Environmental Focus Scenario – Preliminary Portfolio

    Environmental Focus Scenario – Preliminary Portfolio Generation Impacts 2014 - 2018 2019 - 2023 2024 - 2028 2029 - 2033 Retirements WR 2-6 Coal Old Oil CTs Likely Retirements GAL, GIB5 CAY, GIB1-4 Additions WR 6 Gas CT CC, CT Nuclear, CC Energy Efficiency 2018 2023 2028 2033 MWs Peak Contribution 40

  24. Slide 24: Generation Impacts Comparison

    Generation Impacts Comparison Low Regulation Scenario Generation Impacts 2014 - 2018 2019 - 2023 2024 - 2028 2029 - 2033 Retirements WR 2-6 Coal Old Oil CTs Additions WR 6 Gas, CT CT CT CC Reference Case Scenario Generation Impacts 2014 - 2018 2019 - 2023 2024 - 2028 2029 - 2033 Retirements WR 2-6 C

  25. Slide 25: Energy Efficiency Comparison

    Energy Efficiency Comparison Low Regulation Scenario Energy Efficiency 2018 2023 2028 2033 MWs Peak Contribution 190 350 520 690 GWHs 1,000 1,900 2,800 3,700 % Retail Sales 5% 8% 10% 12% Reference Case Scenario Energy Efficiency 2018 2023 2028 2033 MWs Peak Contribution 400 600 640 690 GWHs 2,100 3,

  26. Slide 26: Renewable Energy Comparison

    Renewable Energy Comparison Low Regulation Scenario Renewables 2018 2023 2028 2033 MWs Nameplate 60 320 660 720 MWs Peak Contribution 25 90 150 180 GWHs 400 1,000 1,600 1,700 % Total Sales 1% 3% 4% 4% Reference Case Scenario Renewables 2018 2023 2028 2033 MWs Nameplate 60 400 800 1800 MWs Peak Contr

  27. Slide 27: Portfolio Evaluation

    Scott Park, Director- Midwest IRP Portfolio Evaluation 27

  28. Slide 28: How are portfolios evaluated?

    How are portfolios evaluated?  Once the capacity expansion planning model has selected an optimal portfolio for a given scenario, the portfolio is then evaluated in a detailed production cost model  Production cost modeling provides output on several attributes of the portfolio being modeled that

  29. Slide 29: Example of Results Matrix: PVRR

    Example of Results Matrix PVRR ($) LRP RCP EFP (Low Reg Portfolio) (Ref Case Portfolio) (Enviro Focus Portfolio) Low Regulation Scenario Duke Reference Case Scenario Environmental Focus Scenario 29

  30. Slide 30: Example of Results Matrix: CO2

    Example of Results Matrix CO2 (tons) LRP RCP EFP (Low Reg Portfolio) (Ref Case Portfolio) (Enviro Focus Portfolio) Low Regulation Scenario Duke Reference Case Scenario Environmental Focus Scenario 30

  31. Slide 31: Sensitivity Analysis

    Sensitivity Analysis  Sensitivity analysis will be used to further complement the cross-scenario analysis  Provides additional insight into a portfolios risks  Measures responsiveness to changes in key variables  Sensitivity analysis allows for the comparison of portfolios with respect to change

  32. Slide 32: Sensitivities for the Low Regulation Scenario (Current Plan)

    Sensitivities for the Low Regulation Scenario (Current Plan) LOW REGULATION Low Sens Base High Sens CO2 $0 $17/tn in 2020 going to $50/tn in 2033 No new SO2 reqs; NOX reqs (SCR > No new SO2 reqs; NOX reqs (SCR > NAAQS 400 MW; SNCR < 400 MW) (25) 400 MW; SNCR < 400 MW) (20) Lower intake velocity scre

  33. Slide 33: Sensitivities for the Reference Case Scenario (Current Plan)

    Sensitivities for the Reference Case Scenario (Current Plan) DUKE ENERGY REFERENCE CASE Low Sens Base High Sens CO2 $0 $17/tn in 2020 going to $50/tn in 2033 $20/tn in 2020 going to $75/tn in 2033 No new SO2 reqs; NOX reqs (SCR > No new SO2 reqs; NOX reqs (SCR > Units >400 MW need a SCR & scrubber N

  34. Slide 34: Sensitivities for the Environmental Focus Scenario (Current Plan)

    Sensitivities for the Environmental Focus Scenario (Current Plan) ENVIRONMENTAL FOCUS Low Sens Base High Sens CO2 $17/tn in 2020 going to $50/tn in 2033 $20/tn in 2020 going to $75/tn in 2033 No new SO2 reqs; NOX reqs (SCR > Units >400 MW need a SCR & NAAQS All units scrubbed 400 MW; SNCR < 400 MW)

  35. Slide 35: Portfolio Risks

    Portfolio Risks  Scenario analysis provides insight into the broad based exposure to different futures  Sensitivity analysis provides more targeted insight into a portfolio’s risk with respect to specific variable  While System Optimizer optimizes resource plans over the entire planning period 

  36. Slide 36: Generation Impacts Comparison

    Generation Impacts Comparison Low Regulation Scenario Generation Impacts 2014 - 2018 2019 - 2023 2024 - 2028 2029 - 2033 Retirements WR 2-6 Coal Old Oil CTs Additions WR 6 Gas, CT CT CT CC Reference Case Scenario Generation Impacts 2014 - 2018 2019 - 2023 2024 - 2028 2029 - 2033 Retirements WR 2-6 C

  37. Slide 37: Decision Making

    Decision Making  Modeling the various combinations of portfolios, scenarios and sensitivities requires over 100 model runs and creates a tremendous amount of data  The objective of the IRP is to produce a robust portfolio (resource plan) that meets the load obligation while minimizing the present

  38. Slide 38: Next Steps

    Next Steps  Detailed Production Cost analysis of selected portfolios  Planning for September/October Stakeholder meeting  Present modeling results  Present IRP portfolio  Discussion on preferred format for the Sept/Oct meeting  Submit IRP on November 1 38

Duke Energy — Corporate Update (July 2013) on 6ix