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

[ELECTRIC POWER ]
MEGAWATT DAILY
www.platts.com
Thursday, June 18, 2015
www.twitter.com/plattspower
Exelon, NRG top wholesale power trading ranks

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
MARKETS
(continued on page 19)
100% renewables study draws jokes, respect

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.
ANALYSIS
FERC denies Artificial Island complaint

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
Price trends at key trading points ($/MWh)

80
ISONE Hub
PJM West
Indiana Hub
ERCOT North
SP15
60
40
20
0
19-May
25-May
31-May
06-Jun
12-Jun
18-Jun
Source: Platts
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 14.34
NYISO 20.08 30.71 11.18 15.32
PJM
28.09 60.09 16.65 24.73
MISO 24.35 36.52 12.95 23.27
ERCOT 29.17 33.53 19.49 19.64
SPP
28.72 30.41 16.30 20.22
CAISO 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
Southeast
Southern, Into 40.75 13837 20.14 17.19 11.30 5.41 -3.43
Florida
41.50 12170 17.63
14.22 7.40 0.58 -9.65
Northwest
Mid-C
COB
37.73 14456 19.46 16.85 11.63 6.41 -1.42

39.93 13962 19.91 17.05 11.33 5.61 -2.97
Southwest
Palo Verde
Mead
41.79 14510 21.63 18.75 12.99 7.23 -1.41

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.
Inside this Issue

Firms detail REITs, YieldCos for transmission
Plea for more CFTC funding falls flat in House bill
Texas bills tie wind, solar to desalination projects
Florida utilities slam voter initiative on solar
PJM reforms wont save Illinois nukes: Exelon
NYISO eyes distributed resources for future grid
12
13
13
14
15
16
Megawatt Daily
ISONE & NYISO gas and coal generation (GWh)
Northeast markets
400
Mass Hub drops with load, spot gas
300
Northeast 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 $2.855/
MMBtu. Algonquin July financial basis eased 9 cents to negative
53 cents/MMBtu, and Transco Zone-6 New York July basis
widened out by about 9 cents to negative 68 cents/MMBtu.
200
Coal
Gas
100
0
19-Mar
3-Apr
18-Apr
3-May
18-May
2-Jun
17-Jun
Source: Bentek
Northeast spot natural gas prices ($/MMBtu)

4
Iroquois zone 2
Transco zone 6 N.Y.
Algonquin city-gates
1
05-May
13-May
21-May
01-Jun
09-Jun
17-Jun
Source: Platts
Northeast load and generation mix forecast (GWh)

Actual
% Chg
16-Jun %Chg Year-ago
ISONE
Load
347 2
0
Generation
Coal 9
-10 12
Gas
162 10 12
Nuclear 98 0 -7
NYISO
Load
484 -1
Generation
Coal 13 1
Gas
195 5
Nuclear 110 -18
Forecast
17-Jun 18-Jun 19-Jun 20-Jun 21-Jun
360 345 341 309 320
10 9 8 7 9
169 166 165 153 158
98 98 98 98 98
485 452 439 389 430
-8
21
6
13 12 10 9 10
192 174 167 156 183
135 135 135 135 135
Source: Bentek
Copyright 2015 McGraw Hill Financial
Megawatt Daily
ISONE day-ahead LMP for Jun 18 ($/MWh)
Northeast Platts M2MS Forward Curve, Jun 17 ($/MWh)

Avg
Marginal
Hub/Zone
Average Cong
Loss Change $/Mo heat rate
Prompt month: Jul 15
On-peak
Internal Hub
22.71 0.00 -0.07 -4.18 23.91
11038
Connecticut
22.88 0.00 0.10 -4.40
25.38 9249
NE Mass-Boston 22.88 0.00 0.10 -4.13
24.27
11123
SE Mass
22.52 0.00 -0.26 -4.05 23.78
10945
West-Central Mass 22.83 0.00 0.05 -4.23
24.01
11095
Rhode Island
22.29 0.00 -0.49 -4.09 23.58
10835
Maine
22.78 0.00 0.00 -4.03
23.58 7835
New Hampshire 22.92 0.00 0.14 -4.11
23.89 7883
Vermont
22.63 -0.19 0.03 -4.29 23.66 7782
N.Y. Zone A: Forward curve on-peak ($/MWh)

80
60
Internal Hub
14.27 0.00 -0.04 -2.39 14.38 6865
Connecticut
14.30 0.00 -0.01 -2.44 14.57 5645
NE Mass-Boston 14.34 0.00 0.03 -2.36
14.41 6897
SE Mass
14.33 0.00 0.02 -2.42
14.43 6893
West-Central Mass 14.32 0.00 0.01 -2.39
14.42 6887
Rhode Island
14.33 0.00 0.02 -2.80
14.63 6892
Maine
14.20 0.00 -0.11 -1.29 14.02 4859
New Hampshire
14.25 0.00 -0.06 -2.29 14.24 4874
Vermont
14.34 0.00 0.03 -2.41
14.33 4907
40
20
Ju
l-1
Au 5
gSe 15
Ju pl/A 15
ug
Q4 15
-15
Ma
yJu 16
n-1
S
Ja ep 6
n/ -1
Ma Feb 6
r/ -16
Ju Apr
l/A -16
ug
-1
Q4 6
Ma 16
y-1
Ju 7
n-1
Ja Sep 7
n/ -1
F
Ma eb 7
r/ -17
Ju Apr
l/A -17
ug
-1
Q4 7
-1
Ca 7
l-1
Ca 6
l-1
Ca 7
l-1
Ca 8
l-1
9
NYISO day-ahead LMP for Jun 18 ($/MWh)

Avg
Marginal
Hub/Zone
Average Cong
On-peak
22.41
22.67
27.20
21.75
26.69
30.71
27.15
22.34
27.38
20.08
26.15
0.28
-0.57
-3.02
-0.21
-2.68
-5.82
-2.97
-0.33
-3.02
0.00
-4.45
1.18
0.59
2.67
0.02
2.50
3.38
2.67
0.50
2.84
-1.43
0.18
-3.86
-3.59
-8.66
-3.41
-7.91
-8.51
-8.67
-4.04
-8.95
-3.64
-2.11
23.73
23.78
29.21
22.42
28.52
33.72
29.17
23.36
29.93
20.63
29.64
9420
11470
9632
11003
9450
10875
9611
10492
9693
6907
13228
12.27
11.87
12.95
11.56
12.89
15.32
12.94
11.90
13.05
11.18
11.78
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-1.97
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.55
0.15
1.23
-0.16
1.17
1.63
1.22
0.17
1.33
-0.55
0.06
-6.43
-5.61
-7.23
-5.34
-7.15
-7.83
-7.27
-5.79
-7.25
-5.35
-5.28
13.42
11.56
13.76
11.15
13.71
17.96
13.77
11.69
13.87
10.82
11.30
5083
5989
4339
5835
4320
5133
4335
5571
4372
3824
5943
Off-peak
39.45
24.45
45.30
25.20
49.85
26.60
43.80
22.15
23.80 12.35
*Ontario prices are in Canadian dollars
Off-Peak
Capital Zone
Central Zone
Dunwoodie Zone
Genesee Zone
Hudson Valley Zone
Long Island Zone
Millwood Zone
Mohawk Valley Zone
N.Y.C. Zone
North Zone
West Zone
On-peak
Mass Hub
N.Y. Zone G
N.Y. Zone J
N.Y. Zone A
Ontario*
N.Y. Zone A: Marginal heat rate on-peak (Btu/kWh)

35000
Month 1
Month 2
30000
25000
20000
14-May
22-May
1-Jun
9-Jun
17-Jun
Off-Peak
Capital Zone
Central Zone
Dunwoodie Zone
Genesee Zone
Hudson Valley Zone
Long Island Zone
Millwood Zone
Mohawk Valley Zone
N.Y.C. Zone
North Zone
West Zone
Generation unit outage report
Plant/Operator
Cap Fuel State Status Return
Northeast
Darlington-1/OPG
Lake Superior/Brookfield
Lennox-1/OPG
Pickering-1/OPG
Thunder Bay/Resolute
Thunderbay-3/OPG
876 n Ont.
120
g Ont.
525 g Ont.
500 n Ont.
116 bio Ont.
153 bio Ont.
MO
PMO
MO
MO
MO
MO
Unk
Unk
Unk
Unk
Unk
Unk
Shut
06/08/15
11/04/14
04/09/15
05/15/15
06/15/15
04/16/15
Megawatt Daily
Southeast & Central day-ahead bilateral indexes for Jun 18 ($/MWh)
Southeast markets
ERCOT dailies jump with gas prices

Electric 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.

Avg Marginal

Index Change $/Mo heat rate
Southeast On-peak
VACAR
39.50 -1.00 34.46 12951
Southern, Into
40.75
-1.25 32.86 13837
GTC, Into
41.25
-1.25 33.55
7385
Florida
41.50 0.25 34.91 12170
TVA, Into
38.75
-0.25 32.98 13047
Southeast Off-Peak
VACAR
Southern, Into
GTC, Into
Florida
TVA, Into
20.75
20.75
21.75
23.50
21.00
0.50 18.21 6803

0.75 17.88
7046
1.25 18.49
7385
0.25 22.18 6891
0.75 18.10
7071
Southeast load and generation mix forecast (GWh)

Actual
% Chg
Forecast
ERCOT
Load
1112
3
2
Generation
Coal 459 4
1
Gas
369 -15
9
Nuclear 123 0 12
SPP
Load
681
Generation
Coal 399
Gas
137
Nuclear 61
1108 1077 1066 1053 1065

456 447 442 441 445
340 370 405 430 447
123 123 123 123 123
-3
677 670 661 658 683
-7 -8
7
4
2 -6
397 401 409 420 431

138 141 143 158 174
61 61 61 61 61
Source: Bentek
Daily generation outage references

MO unplanned maintenance outage
RF
refueling outage
PMO planned maintenance outage
Unk unknown
OA offline/available
Fuels: Nuclear=n; Coal=c; Natural gas=g; Hydro=h ; Wind=w
Sources: Generation owners, public information and other market sources.
ERCOT & SPP gas and coal generation (GWh)
Southeast & Central spot natural gas prices ($/MMBtu)
1000
3.5
Panhandle, Tx. Okla.
Houston Ship Channel
Coal
Henry Hub
Gas
800
3.0
600
2.5
2.0
05-May
400
13-May
21-May
01-Jun
09-Jun
17-Jun
200
19-Mar
3-Apr
18-Apr
3-May
Source: Bentek
Source: Platts
18-May
2-Jun
17-Jun
Megawatt Daily
ERCOT average day-ahead LMP for Jun 18 ($/MWh)
Southeast & Central Platts M2MS Forward Curve, Jun 17 ($/MWh)

Avg
Marginal
Hub/Zone
Average
Change $/Mo heat rate
On-peak
Bus Average 29.30
3.81
27.23
10286
Hub Average 29.38
3.78
27.48
10313
Houston Hub 29.67
3.70
28.28
10350
North Hub
29.17
3.87
26.64
10264
South Hub
29.39
3.72
28.19
10183
West Hub
29.28
3.82
26.78
10501
AEN Zone
29.84
3.94
32.32
10700
CPS Zone
29.85
3.71
29.59
10436
LCRA Zone 29.50
3.81
29.10
10315
Rayburn Zone 29.19
3.83
27.18
10270
Houston Zone 30.22
4.05
28.54
10542
North Zone 29.22
3.87
27.24
10282
South Zone 33.08
5.36
34.49
11461
West Zone
33.53
5.03
32.83
12024
Southern Into
Entergy Into
ERCOT North
ERCOT Houston
ERCOT West
ERCOT South
On-peak
Off-peak
37.05
43.55
37.20
37.85
37.95
39.35
27.25
30.40
19.00
21.25
20.70
20.55
Southern Into: Forward curve on-peak ($/MWh)

50
40
30
20
Off-Peak
Bus Average 19.51
-0.03
17.79
6884
Hub Average 19.51
-0.03
17.84
6886
Houston Hub 19.54
-0.01
17.95
6855
North Hub
19.49
-0.04
17.68
6910
South Hub
19.53
-0.01
18.01
6789
West Hub
19.50
-0.04
17.73
7043
AEN Zone
19.54
-0.01
18.68
7056
CPS Zone
19.53
-0.04
18.33
6856
LCRA Zone 19.52
-0.03
17.96
6852
Rayburn Zone 19.49
-0.04
17.71
6910
Houston Zone 19.54
-0.02
17.95
6855
North Zone 19.49
-0.04
17.69
6910
South Zone 19.64
0.08
18.18
6827
West Zone
19.54
-0.05
17.89
7056
10
Ju
l
Au -15
g
Se -15
Ju pl/A 15
ug
-1
Q4 5
Ma -15
y-1
Ju 6
n-1
Ja Sep- 6
n/ 1
Ma Feb 6
r/ -16
Ju Apr-1
l/A
ug 6
-1
Q4 6
Ma -16
y-1
Ju 7
n-1
Ja Sep- 7
n/ 1
Ma Feb 7
r/ -17
Ju Apr-1
l/A
ug 7
-1
Q4 7
-1
Ca 7
l-1
Ca 6
l-1
Ca 7
l-1
Ca 8
l-1
9
Southern Into: Marginal heat rate on-peak (Btu/kWh)

16000
Month 1
Month 2
15000
14000
MISO South average day-ahead LMP for Jun 18 ($/MWh)
13000

Avg
Marginal
Hub/Zone
Average Cong
On-peak
Arkansas Hub
Louisiana Hub
Texas Hub
12000
11000
33.58 2.28 -1.36 2.30

29.49
11911
35.22 2.47 0.09 -0.08
42.15
12350
36.52 3.73 0.13 6.19
35.86
12748
10000
14-May
22-May
1-Jun
9-Jun
17-Jun
Off-Peak
Arkansas Hub
Louisiana Hub
Texas Hub
21.96 1.98 -0.67 -0.35 20.54 7779

23.04 2.07 0.33 -0.25
21.92 8069
23.27 2.01 0.62 -0.41
22.39 8165
SPP average day-ahead LMP for Jun 18 ($/MWh)

Avg
Marginal
Hub/Zone
Average Cong
Plant/Operator
On-peak
SPP North Hub
SPP South Hub
28.72
0.01
-0.72
1.78 25.37 10274
30.41 0.00 0.98 1.15
29.77
11035
Off-Peak
SPP North Hub
SPP South Hub
16.30 -0.60 -1.23 -0.13 13.87 5869

20.22 1.53 0.56 0.58
18.40 7454
Southeast near-term bilateral markets ($/MWh)

Package
Trade date
Shut
Southeast & Central

Big Brown/Luminant 575 c
Texas
MO Unk
Bowen-2/Georgia Power
800
c Ga.
PMO
Unk
Limestone-2/NRG
860 c
Texas
MO Unk
Martin Lake-2/Luminant 750 c
Texas
MO Unk
Monticello-1/Luminant 565 c
Texas
MO Unk
Monticello-2/Luminant 565 c
Texas
MO Unk
Robinson-2/CP&L
797 n S.C. MO Unk
Welsh-3/Sewpco
528 c
Texas
MO Unk
04/13/15
04/04/13
08/09/14
02/01/15
06/11/14
06/11/14
05/12/15
03/30/15
Range
Southern, into
Next-week
Next-week
Next-week
Next-week (off-peak)
06/17 45.25-46.25
06/16 42.50-43.50
06/11 42.00-43.00
06/17
23.00-24.00
GTC, into
Next-week
06/11 42.50-43.50
Megawatt Daily
Western day-ahead bilateral indexes for Jun 18 ($/MWh)
West markets
West dailies rise with stronger gas prices

West 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 dayahead 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.

Avg Marginal

Index Change $/Mo heat rate
On-peak
Mid-C
37.73 3.75 28.41 14456
John Day
38.75
3.75 29.55 14847
COB
39.93 0.54 31.66 13962
NOB
39.25 3.00 29.41 15038
Palo Verde
41.79
3.79 28.23 14510
Westwing
39.75 1.25 28.36 13802
Pinnacle Peak
42.50
3.50 29.45 14757
Mead
45.25 5.25 29.64 15313
Mona
44.00 1.75 29.50 16206
Four Corners
45.00
2.50 28.88 16043
Off-Peak
Mid-C
John Day
COB
NOB
Palo Verde
Westwing
Pinnacle Peak
Mead
Mona
Four Corners
26.23
27.25
27.25
26.75
21.50
21.75
22.25
24.00
20.75
21.75
0.57 22.45 10050

0.50 23.49 10441
1.50 23.66 9528
0.00 23.40 10249
-0.25 20.97
7465
-0.25 21.42 7552
-0.50 22.13
7726
0.00 22.65 8122
-0.25 20.01 7643
-0.50 20.38
7754
CAISO gas generation (GWh)

350
300
250
200
150
100
19-Mar
3-Apr
18-Apr
3-May
18-May
17-Jun
Western spot natural gas prices ($/MMBtu)

5
NW, Can. Bdr. (Sumas)
SoCal Gas city-gate
PG&E city-gate
4
3
2
1
05-May
13-May
21-May
01-Jun
09-Jun
17-Jun
Source: Platts
Market coverage
Western load and generation mix forecast (GWh)
Platts 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 Eric.Wieser@platts.com.
Actual
% Chg
CAISO
Load
647 -3 -4
Generation
Gas
249 7 -13
Nuclear 56 0 18
Source: Bentek
2-Jun
Source: Bentek
Forecast
650 657 659 629 616
234 243 264 281 285
56 56 56 56 56
Megawatt Daily
CAISO average day-ahead LMP for Jun 18 ($/MWh)
Western Platts M2MS Forward Curve, Jun 17 ($/MWh)

Avg
Marginal
Hub/Zone
Average Cong
On-peak
NP15 Gen Hub
SP15 Gen Hub
ZP26 Gen Hub
38.06 -1.11 -1.20 -1.95 34.71

11783
38.69 -0.03 -1.65 -0.32 33.36
13092
36.64 -1.02 -2.71 -1.33 32.71
12399
On-peak
Mid-C
Palo Verde
Mead
NP15
SP15
Off-peak
43.10 28.50
36.95
26.80
39.15 28.10
42.85 32.00
42.20 32.55
Off-Peak
NP15 Gen Hub
SP15 Gen Hub
ZP26 Gen Hub
29.01
29.84
29.47
-1.48
0.00
0.00
-0.53
-1.18
-1.55
0.57
1.52
1.61
27.78
27.80
27.48
9087
10240
10114
Mead: Forward curve on-peak ($/MWh)

50
40
30
Western near-term bilateral markets ($/MWh)

Package
Trade date
20
Range
06/17 36.25-36.75
06/16 34.50-35.00
06/12 30.25-30.75
06/11 27.50-28.00
Ju
Palo Verde
Bal-month
Bal-month
Bal-month
Bal-month
Au
06/16 34.00-34.50
06/15 35.25-35.75
06/17 44.00-45.00
06/16 40.00-41.50
06/12 31.75-32.25
06/11 30.00-30.50
06/17
29.00-29.50
06/16
27.00-27.50
06/15
24.75-25.25
06/12
23.50-24.00
06/11
22.50-23.00
06/12 35.75-36.25
06/11 28.00-28.50
l-1
5
g-1
5
Se
p-1
5
Q3
-15
Q4
-15
Q1
-16
Q2
-16
Q3
-16
Q4
-16
Q1
-17
Q2
-17
Q3
-17
Q4
-17
Ca
l-1
6
Ca
l-1
7
Ca
l-1
8
Ca
l-1
9
10
Mid-C
Bal-week
Bal-week
Bal-month
Bal-month
Bal-month
Bal-month
Bal-month (off-peak)
Next-week
Next-week
Mead: Marginal heat rate on-peak (Btu/kWh)

16000
14000
13000
12000
11000
West
Big Creek/SCE
820
Columbia/Energy Northwest 1141
Colusa/PG&E
641
CVSR-A/NRG
210
Gilroy/Calpine
120
McCoy/NextEra
250
Moss Landing-1/Dynegy
510
Pittsburg/Pittsburg
317
14-May
22-May
1-Jun
9-Jun
17-Jun
BPA & CAISO hydro and wind generation (GWh)

Plant/Operator
Month 1
Month 2
15000
Shut
300
250
h Calif. MO
n Wash. MO
g Calif. PMO
s Calif. MO
g Calif. PMO
s Calif. MO
g Calif. MO
g Calif. PMO
Unk
Unk
Unk
Unk
Unk
Unk
Unk
Unk
06/15/15
05/11/15
06/01/15
06/16/15
06/16/15
06/15/15
05/25/15
06/14/15
BPA Hydro
CAISO Hydro
BPA Wind
CAISO Wind
200
150
100
50
0
17-May
22-May
27-May
1-Jun
Source: BPA and CAISO
6-Jun
11-Jun
16-Jun
Megawatt Daily
PJM & MISO gas and coal generation (GWh)
PJM & MISO markets
2500
Coal
Gas
2000
PJM West steady in mid-$30s/MWh

Mid-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 $39.50/MWh.
1500
1000
500
0
19-Mar
3-Apr
18-Apr
3-May
18-May
2-Jun
17-Jun
Source: Bentek
PJM & MISO spot natural gas prices ($/MMBtu)

4
Chicago city-gates
Columbia Gas App
Tx.Eastern, M-3
1
05-May
13-May
21-May
01-Jun
09-Jun
17-Jun
Source: Platts
PJM & MISO load and generation mix forecast (GWh)

Actual
% Chg
PJM
Load
2414
Generation
Coal 921
Gas
567
Nuclear 773
-7
-9 -10
1 31
2
2
MISO
Load
1979
-5
-2
Generation
Coal 1059
-6 -15
Gas
341 -18 44
Nuclear 307 1 62
Forecast
2438 2296 2174 2020 2238
967 937 894 849 819
506 479 470 464 532
773 773 773 773 773
1994 1982 1875 1834 1895
1068 1074 1041 1071 1117
347 346 322 346 386
182 187 204 233 263
Source: Bentek
Additional information on data and analysis

For more information on data and analysis from Bentek Analytics, including
five-day load and generation mix forecasts and relative load normalized
by temperature, email power@bentekenergy.com, 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.
Megawatt Daily
PJM average day-ahead LMP for Jun 18 ($/MWh)
PJM & MISO Platts M2MS Forward Curve, Jun 17 ($/MWh)

Avg
Marginal
Hub/Zone
Average Cong
On-peak
AEP Gen Hub
35.55
0.19
-1.84
1.56 33.88 14225
AEP-Dayton Hub 37.00 0.56 -0.77 1.80
35.77
14803
ATSI Gen Hub
36.03
-0.67
-0.50
0.57 34.92 14545
Chicago Gen Hub
31.61
-3.47
-2.12
2.46 29.66 10964
Chicago Hub
32.51 -3.09 -1.60 2.28 31.16
11277
Dominion Hub
41.54 3.95 0.39 1.96
39.77
14099
Eastern Hub
33.59 -5.04 1.42 -1.20 32.12
14698
New Jersey Hub
29.60
-8.37
0.77
-1.12 29.48 12952
Northern Illinois Hub 32.26
-3.10
-1.84
2.32 30.59 11191
Ohio Hub
36.18 -0.31 -0.71 1.11 35.22
12484
West Internal Hub
38.43
1.87
-0.65
1.18 37.03 18886
Western Hub
37.64 1.44 -1.00 1.38
36.53
18497
AEP Zone
36.86 0.33 -0.66 1.73
35.68
14750
Allegheny Power Zone 38.08
0.97
-0.09
1.82 36.30 15508
Atlantic Elec Zone
29.29
-8.82
0.91
-1.46 29.57 12820
ATSI Zone
37.02 -0.28 0.10 0.55
35.85
14945
BG&E Zone
60.09 21.12 1.77 6.45 51.98 24662
ComEd Zone
32.34 -3.16 -1.70 2.30 30.92
11218
Dayton P&L Zone 40.24 2.58 0.46 0.16
37.23
14070
Delmarva P&L Zone
33.69
-4.90
1.39
-1.69 31.84 14746
Dominion Zone
42.40 4.47 0.73 2.14
40.47
14391
Duke Zone
46.49 10.01 -0.73 -1.39 39.90 16256
Duquesne Light Zone 35.98
-0.24
-0.99
1.15 36.39 16147
EKPC Zone
34.18 -1.87 -1.15 2.48 33.84
15112
JCPL Zone
29.50 -8.38 0.68 -1.15 29.39
12911
MetEd Zone
28.45 -8.86 0.11 -1.99 28.53
11512
PECO Zone
28.61 -8.88 0.29 -1.62 28.75
11577
Pennsylvania Elec Zone
32.53 -4.30 -0.37 -0.39 33.56
15506
PEPCO Zone
46.77 8.69 0.87 3.39
43.83
19194
PPL Zone
28.09 -9.14 0.03 -1.39 28.36
11368
PSEG Zone
29.77 -8.24 0.82 -1.02 29.59
13031
Rockland Elec Zone
30.20
-7.75
0.75
-0.85 29.59 13216
PJM West
AD Hub
NI Hub
Indiana Hub
On-peak
Off-peak
52.25
47.40
41.60
39.40
30.00
28.85
23.70
27.25
Ad Hub: Forward curve on-peak ($/MWh)

60
50
40
30
20
10
Ju
l
Au -15
g
Se -15
Ju pl/A 15
ug
-1
Q4 5
Ma -15
y-1
Ju 6
n-1
Ja Sep- 6
n/ 1
Ma Feb 6
r/ -16
Ju Apr-1
l/A
ug 6
-1
Q4 6
Ma -16
y-1
Ju 7
n-1
Ja Sep- 7
n/ 1
Ma Feb 7
r/ -17
Ju Apr-1
l/A
ug 7
-1
Q4 7
-1
Ca 7
l-1
Ca 6
l-1
Ca 7
l-1
Ca 8
l-1
9
AD Hub: Marginal heat rate on-peak (Btu/kWh)

25000
Month 1
Month 2
20000
15000
Off-Peak
AEP Gen Hub
21.83
0.86
-0.51
-0.43 19.89
8713
AEP-Dayton Hub
22.37 0.96 -0.06 -0.42 20.59 8928
ATSI Gen Hub
21.80
0.44
-0.11
-0.87 19.89
8799
Chicago Gen Hub
17.34
-3.22
-0.92
1.88 15.97
6042
Chicago Hub
17.91 -2.90 -0.66 1.70 16.65 6242
Dominion Hub
23.66 1.76 0.43 0.04
21.44 8075
Eastern Hub
19.69 -1.95 0.17 -1.77 16.76 8137
New Jersey Hub
19.47 -1.88 -0.13 -1.81 16.74 8046
-2.89
-0.78
1.72 16.37
6202
Ohio Hub
22.40 0.99 -0.06 -0.45 20.70 7776
West Internal Hub
22.35
0.97
-0.09
-0.49 20.54 10805
Western Hub
22.35 1.27 -0.39 -0.03 20.12
10806
AEP Zone
22.42 0.94 0.01 -0.39
20.51 8946
Allegheny Power Zone
23.20 1.63 0.10 0.37
20.43 9389
Atlantic Elec Zone 19.36 -1.93 -0.18 -1.88 16.55 7999
ATSI Zone
22.00 0.43 0.10 -0.88
20.13 8879
BG&E Zone
24.73 2.47 0.79 -3.21
25.11 9910
ComEd Zone
17.85 -2.90 -0.72 1.69 16.52 6221
Dayton P&L Zone
22.93
0.97
0.48
-0.51 20.80
8044
Delmarva P&L Zone
19.74
-1.94
0.21
-1.68 16.67
8157
Dominion Zone
23.93 1.95 0.50 0.15
21.68 8166
Duke Zone
22.54 1.14 -0.07 -0.51 20.40 7909
0.36
-0.36
-0.88 19.84
9559
EKPC Zone
22.01 0.80 -0.27 -0.21 20.00 9619
JCPL Zone
19.40 -1.90 -0.17 -1.82 16.68 8018
MetEd Zone
16.65 -4.45 -0.37 -4.32 15.96 6508
PECO Zone
19.27 -1.95 -0.25 -1.83 16.45 7532
Pennsylvania Elec Zone
20.80 -0.49 -0.19 -1.03 19.27 9940
PEPCO Zone
24.01 2.11 0.42 -0.40
22.52 9618
PPL Zone
18.72 -2.29 -0.47 -2.19 16.36 7314
PSEG Zone
19.57 -1.84 -0.06 -1.78 16.84 8086
Rockland Elec Zone 19.67 -1.71 -0.09 -1.77 16.95 8128
10000
14-May
22-May
1-Jun
9-Jun
17-Jun
MISO average day-ahead LMP for Jun 18 ($/MWh)

Avg
Marginal
Hub/Zone
Average Cong
On-peak
Indiana Hub
Michigan Hub
Minnesota Hub
Illinois Hub
33.53 0.19 0.69 3.19

31.64
14812
33.49 -0.01 0.84 -0.17 30.85
11265
24.35 -6.42 -1.89 1.82 24.89 8647
30.50 -1.58 -0.58 3.03 29.17
10536
Off-Peak
Indiana Hub
Michigan Hub
Minnesota Hub
Illinois Hub
21.88 0.74 0.49 0.40

18.69 9581
21.89 0.66 0.59 -0.30
18.89 7431
12.95 -6.43 -1.27 1.49 13.82 4635
19.94 -0.27 -0.44 0.87 17.20 6914

Plant/Operator
PJM & MISO
DC Cook-1/AEP

1041
Mich. MO
Unk
Shut
05/31/15
Megawatt Daily
ISONE average real-time LMP for Jun 16 ($/MWh)
PJM average real-time LMP for Jun 16 ($/MWh)

Hub/Zone
Average Change

Hub/Zone
Average Change
Avg Marginal DA/RT Avg Mo

$/Mo heat rate spread DA/RT
On-peak
Internal Hub
Connecticut
NE Mass-Boston
SE Mass
West-Central Mass
Rhode Island
Maine
New Hampshire
Vermont
On-peak
16.98 -11.19 19.67 10892 12.21
17.31 -11.24 20.66 7997 12.24
17.01 -11.38 19.83 10911 12.23
16.77 -11.34 19.63 10758 12.04
17.05 -11.20 19.72 10937 12.28
16.70 -10.98 19.46 10716 11.91
17.02 -11.16 19.45 5940 12.05
17.07 -11.16 19.63 5959 12.17
17.02 -10.88 19.35 5942 11.73
4.13
4.76
4.35
4.06
4.18
4.03
3.98
4.13
4.17
Off-Peak
Internal Hub
17.51 -6.31
11.17
11234 2.21 3.08
Connecticut
17.77 -6.39
11.23 8206 2.15 3.22
NE Mass-Boston 17.50 -6.36
11.22
11226 2.19 3.06
SE Mass
17.41 -6.36
11.18
11166 2.20 3.11
West-Central Mass 17.58 -6.29
11.19
11280 2.22 3.10
Rhode Island
17.40 -6.31
11.17
11163 2.16 3.32
Maine
17.12 -6.07
10.97 5974 1.96 2.94
New Hampshire 17.36 -6.09
11.05 6058 2.11 3.04
Vermont
17.57 -5.81
10.99 6131 2.09 3.19
NYISO average real-time LMP for Jun 16 ($/MWh)

Hub/Zone
Average Change

On-peak
Capital Zone
Central Zone
Dunwoodie Zone
Genesee Zone
Hudson Valley Zone
Long Island Zone
Millwood Zone
Mohawk Valley Zone
N.Y.C. Zone
North Zone
West Zone
21.09
20.51
22.14
19.94
22.18
22.22
22.41
20.52
24.31
18.91
20.87
-8.49
-9.31
-9.03
-8.11
-8.70
-13.72
-8.69
-8.50
-10.22
-7.55
-16.80
18.15
18.29
21.51
17.59
21.23
28.53
21.53
17.94
23.40
16.22
23.97
9280
11228
8141
10915
8153
8169
8239
10121
8939
6602
11423
6.64
7.07
15.50
6.48
14.02
19.92
15.23
7.26
14.23
5.90
7.45
5.51
5.40
7.41
4.70
7.02
5.04
7.36
5.30
6.29
4.25
5.98
Off-Peak
Capital Zone
Central Zone
Dunwoodie Zone
Genesee Zone
Hudson Valley Zone
Long Island Zone
Millwood Zone
Mohawk Valley Zone
N.Y.C. Zone
North Zone
West Zone
21.34
-5.25 12.74
9390
-3.65
0.42
20.62 -5.20 11.30
11290 -3.69 -0.12
22.26
-5.51 13.25
8184
-3.51
0.17
20.22 -4.95 10.84
11072 -3.80 -0.07
22.18
-5.65 13.24
8156
-3.51
0.13
22.35
-6.49 14.93
8218
-0.66
2.88
22.24
-5.55 13.28
8177
-3.49
0.14
20.75
-5.19 11.68 10236
-3.62
-0.38
22.34 -5.64 13.57 8215 -3.43 -0.06
19.63 -4.72 10.62 6852 -3.67 -0.19
20.15
-4.92 10.80 11030
-3.60
0.11
Ontario average hourly prices for Jun 16 ($/MWh)

Hub/Zone
Average Change
Avg Marginal
$/Mo heat rate
On-peak
IESO
19.15 -10.09 18.26 6714
Off-Peak
IESO

7.02 -4.22 4.25 2461
10
AEP Gen Hub

49.13 -15.18 35.92 21329 -15.10
-2.15
AEP-Dayton Hub
50.82 -15.43 37.39 22064 -12.92 -1.66
ATSI Gen Hub
48.69 -16.55 37.48 20970 -11.77
-2.66
Chicago Gen Hub
43.67
-9.01 32.03 16248 -13.77
-2.47
Chicago Hub
44.65 -10.47 32.99 16613 -13.63 -1.85
Dominion Hub
61.10 -11.70 40.20 21920 -13.36 -0.52
Eastern Hub
96.21 25.00 35.89 45677 -49.39 -4.03
New Jersy Hub
27.21 -22.66 28.73 12918 13.06
0.67
Northern Illinois Hub 44.24 -10.43 32.67 16463 -13.61
-2.14
Ohio Hub
50.86 -15.34 37.49 18629 -12.18 -2.32
West Internal Hub
53.10 -14.59 40.22 28810 -12.73
-3.29
Western Hub
55.07 -14.21 38.29 29874 -15.65 -1.81
AEP Zone
51.12 -14.80 37.26 22195 -12.71 -1.62
Allegheny Power Zone 52.64 -14.69 38.19 23378 -13.86
-2.00
Atlantic Elec Zone
31.98 -17.73 28.74 15182
9.52
0.77
ATSI Zone
49.52 -17.08 39.26 21328 -11.19 -3.52
BG&E Zone
122.08 5.81 61.76 53858 -65.99 -10.39
ComEd Zone
44.45 -10.29 33.06 16540 -13.32 -2.18
Dayton P&L Zone
55.36 -22.88 43.38 20714 -16.90
-6.52
Delmarva P&L Zone 106.12 34.06 36.28 50380 -59.00
-4.77
Dominion Zone
63.32 -11.44 41.29 22716 -15.84 -0.93
Duke Zone
59.11 -38.47 44.02 22116 -17.08 -5.03
Duquesne Light Zone 47.42 -16.34 37.86 23020 -11.08
-1.35
EKPC Zone
48.26 -9.83 35.27
23743
-11.48 -1.32
JCPL Zone
26.47 -23.47 29.47 12566 13.59 -0.16
MetEd Zone
25.38 -23.98 27.33 11031 14.45 1.09
PECO Zone
26.32 -23.83 27.75 11438 14.18 0.92
Pennsylvania Elec Zone 38.41 -20.05 34.26 19801
-1.11
-0.59
PEPCO Zone
76.86 -8.13 45.41
33908
-30.50 -1.73
PPL Zone
24.06 -23.53 27.22 10456 15.52 1.09
PSEG Zone
26.49 -23.40 28.22 12577 13.62 1.28
Rockland 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
0.16
AEP-Dayton Hub
23.52 0.16 20.60
10211 -0.30 -0.27
ATSI Gen Hub
23.26
-0.16 19.54 10017
0.18
0.06
Chicago Gen Hub
16.80
-5.42 13.92
6251
4.07
2.00
Chicago Hub
17.67 -4.94
14.05 6573 3.54 2.55
Dominion Hub
24.55 0.95
20.78 8806 -0.33 0.39
Eastern Hub
20.71 -3.01
15.09 9834 3.18 1.19
New Jersy Hub
20.48
-2.64 15.11
9725
3.05
1.18
-4.86 13.97
6563
3.42
2.33
Ohio Hub
23.62 0.18 20.88 8651 -0.35 -0.42
West Internal Hub
23.59
0.27 19.95 12798
-0.01
0.33
Western Hub
23.59 0.24
19.52
12795 -0.45 0.31
AEP Zone
23.55 0.14 20.32
10223 -0.14 -0.07
Allegheny Power Zone 23.60
0.08 20.15 10483
0.01
-0.04
Atlantic Elec Zone
20.51
-2.80 14.94
9737
3.04
1.14
ATSI Zone
23.49 -0.19
19.68
10116 0.24 0.16
BG&E Zone
27.57 3.12
24.73
12163 0.40 0.22
ComEd Zone
17.61 -4.94
14.00 6554 3.54 2.46
Dayton P&L Zone
24.15
-0.08 20.36
9036
-0.29
0.14
Delmarva P&L Zone
20.60
-3.10 14.99
9780
3.30
1.19
Dominion Zone
24.82 1.07
21.04 8903 -0.58 0.37
Duke Zone
23.40 0.08
19.73 8755 -0.17 0.37
-0.34 19.26 11102
0.59
0.32
EKPC Zone
22.95 -0.06 19.46
11290 -0.13 0.28
JCPL Zone
20.44 -2.63
15.07 9703 3.02 1.16
MetEd Zone
20.41 -2.66
14.25 8871 3.00 1.36
PECO Zone
20.32 -2.92
14.86 8833 3.18 1.12
Pennsylvania Elec Zone 22.19
-1.31 18.70 11437
1.27
0.31
PEPCO Zone
25.98 1.94
21.85
11463 -1.97 0.46
PPL Zone
20.25 -2.97
15.16 8802 3.00 0.77
PSEG Zone
20.52 -2.60
15.19 9742 3.06 1.20
Rockland Elec Zone
20.71
-2.36 15.49
9834
2.83
1.02
Megawatt Daily
MISO average real-time LMP for Jun 16 ($/MWh)
ERCOT average real-time LMP for Jun 16 ($/MWh)

Hub/Zone
Average Change

Hub/Zone
Average Change

On-peak
Indiana Hub
Michigan Hub
Minnesota Hub
Illinois Hub
On-peak
40.73 3.41
30.30
20037 -8.59 1.30
47.78 -5.72 31.22
16831
-16.14 -0.70
24.82 5.89
24.32 9411 -3.91 0.76
29.58 -9.56
27.40
10936 0.67 1.79
Off-Peak
Indiana Hub
Michigan Hub
Minnesota Hub
Illinois Hub
23.85 1.86
18.25
11735 -1.75 0.07
23.62 1.68 20.25 8321 -0.94 -1.75
13.38 -1.28 14.34 5072 -0.37 -0.32
20.87 -1.39 17.17 7713 -0.46 -0.27
MISO South average real-time LMP for Jun 16 ($/MWh)

Hub/Zone
Average Change

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

21.48 0.21
20.07 7986 -0.77 0.26
22.77 0.69
21.43 8370 -0.89 0.33
22.89 0.35
21.85 8353 -0.69 0.41
SPP average real-time LMP for Jun 16 ($/MWh)

Hub/Zone
Average Change

Bus Average
Hub Average
Houston Hub
North Hub
South Hub
West Hub
AEN Zone
CPS Zone
LCRA Zone
Rayburn Zone
Houston Zone
North Zone
South Zone
West Zone
22.97 -5.28
24.30 8491 3.32 2.91
22.99 -5.26
24.29 8499 3.39 3.19
22.99 -5.26
24.23 8390 3.29 4.11
22.87 -5.38
24.35 8447 3.13 2.22
23.25 -5.00
24.14 8363 3.45 4.14
22.84 -5.41
24.44 8943 3.29 2.26
22.84 -5.41
29.92 8943 4.81 2.96
22.66 -5.59
24.26 8297 6.43 5.53
22.83 -5.42
26.55 8360 4.23 2.73
22.87 -5.38
24.81 8447 3.46 2.35
22.99 -5.26
24.25 8391 3.20 4.34
22.87 -5.38
24.93 8447 3.23 2.30
39.08 10.83 27.77 14059 20.09 7.23
22.82 -5.43 30.03 8937 13.45 3.03
Off-Peak
Bus Average
Hub Average
Houston Hub
North Hub
South Hub
West Hub
AEN Zone
CPS Zone
LCRA Zone
Rayburn Zone
Houston Zone
North Zone
South Zone
West Zone
20.37 -0.19 17.25 7532 -0.76 0.33

20.37 -0.19 17.27 7532 -0.75 0.36
20.37 -0.19 17.28 7435 -0.75 0.47
20.37 -0.19 17.19 7524 -0.77 0.26
20.37 -0.19 17.37 7328 -0.73 0.45
20.37 -0.19 17.23 7977 -0.74 0.27
20.37 -0.19 17.44 7977 -0.39 1.13
20.37 -0.19 17.60 7459 -0.71 0.57
20.37 -0.19 17.25 7458 -0.57 0.52
20.37 -0.19 17.20 7524 -0.76 0.29
20.37 -0.19 17.28 7435 -0.75 0.47
20.37 -0.19 17.19 7524 -0.76 0.27
20.37 -0.19 17.41 7328 -0.37 0.59
20.37 -0.19 17.19 7977 -0.69 0.49
On-peak
SPP North Hub
SPP South Hub
21.90
-0.71 26.63
8383
3.65
-1.57
25.75 1.12
29.46 9988 2.82 0.30
Off-Peak
SPP North Hub
SPP South Hub
14.79
21.31
-1.41
1.99
11.98
16.98
5660
8266
1.94
-1.15
1.59
1.23
CAISO average real-time LMP for Jun 16 ($/MWh)

Hub/Zone
Average Change
On-peak
Alberta average hourly prices for Jun 16 ($/MWh)

Hub/Zone
Average Change
NP15 Gen Hub

SP15 Gen Hub
ZP26 Gen Hub
Avg Marginal
$/Mo heat rate
On-peak
AESO
31.85
32.13
32.46
1.85
2.38
3.19
48.95
34.96
36.51
10307
11900
12021
7.29
6.37
5.39
-14.79
-2.29
-4.37
21.92
21.96
21.82
-3.40
-2.68
-2.65
25.95
18.79
19.51
7093
8132
8083
6.96
6.68
6.58
1.71
8.85
7.82
Off-Peak
40.59 -4.92 75.97 16567
NP15 Gen Hub

SP15 Gen Hub
ZP26 Gen Hub
Off-Peak
AESO

17.52 -5.31 19.19 7152
11
Megawatt Daily
News
Firms detail REITs, YieldCos for transmission

Transmission 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 July

Mark 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.
12
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
ConEdisonRFPAnnouncement
October2015RFPforNYISOWholesale
ElectricityandCapacity
ConEdisonandOrangeandRocklandUtilitieswillbe
holdingastructuredauctioneventtoprocurewholesale
electricityandcapacityinNYISOfortheperiodbetween
January1,2016April30,2019.
TheIndicativeBidRoundistentativelyscheduledforJune
25,2015andwillbehostedbyEnerNOContheEnerNOC
Exchange.
InordertoparticipateintheIndicativeBid
Round,counterpartiesmustsubmitaNoticeof
IntentbythedeadlinenotedintheEvent
Schedule.
Foradditionalinformationregardingthisevent,pleasevisit:
https://conedison.wesplatform.com
OrcontactEnerNOCat:
conedisonauctionmanager@enernoc.com
Megawatt Daily
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 nonmarket 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 bill

Despite 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 endusers 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 billion

CFTC 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.
13
Daily CSAPR allowance assessments, Jun 17

CSAPR ($/st)
2015 Range
SO2 Group 1
SO2 Group 2
NOx Annual
NOx Seasonal
Mid
2016 Range
Mid
5.00-10.00
7.50
2.50-5.00
3.75
25.00-150.00 87.50 20.00-145.00 82.50
130.00-145.00 137.50 125.00-140.00 132.50
135.00-150.00 142.50 130.00-145.00 137.50
All prices in $/st
RGGI carbon allowance futures, Jun 16 ($/allowance)

ICE
Dec15
Dec16
Dec17
Dec18
Dec15
Dec16
Dec17
Dec18
Dec15
Dec16
Dec17
Dec18
V14
V14
V14
V14
V15
V15
V15
V15
V16
V16
V16
V16
Settlement Volume
5.73
5.89
6.06
6.24
5.73
5.89
6.06
6.24
5.73
5.89
6.06
6.24
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
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.
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 projects

Enactment 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
Megawatt Daily
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-milliongallon-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 desalination

S.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
14
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 solar

Floridas 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 singlesubject requirement and that its title and summary accurately
inform voters of the amendments purpose.
We look forward to Supreme Court approval of the clearlystated petition language in order to place solar choice on the
ballot in 2016, said Tony Perfetti, chairman of Floridians for
Megawatt Daily
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 extensive

Only 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: Exelon

PJMs 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
15
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 longterm 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 bill

To 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
Megawatt Daily
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 grid

As 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
16
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 MW

More 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 marketbased 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
Megawatt Daily
100% renewables study draws jokes...from page 1

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, utilityscale 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
Advertisement
WHAT WOULD
YOU DO WITH
AN EXTRA
MARGIN POINT?
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 restructuring
The 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
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 BELIEVE IN THE POWER OF A QUESTION.

Ask us at www.wgl.com
we are:
www.wgl.com
#askwgl
17
Megawatt Daily
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 path

Neil 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
18
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 key
The 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.
Megawatt Daily
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
FERC denies Artificial Island complaint...from page 1

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
19
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
Exelon, NRG top wholesale trading...from page 1

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 increases

Several 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.
Megawatt Daily
In 2014, Citigroup bought the trading books of Deutsche Bank

and Credit Suisse, which bolstered their overall energy commodity
trading operations.
In the first quarter of 2015, Citigroup Energy reported 30.01
million MWh of wholesale power sales to FERC, which was an
increase of 83.2% compared to sales in the first quarter of 2014.
On the back of those sales, Citigroup, ranked tenth overall, is now
the top power trading bank.
By comparison, JP Morgan Chase, which announced the sale
of its power trading books to Swiss-based merchant trader
Mercuria in late 2014, still reported to FERC 14 million MWh of
wholesale power sales in the first quarter, which was 19.3% lower
than a year ago. JP Morgan is now 25th in the Platts ranking.
Xcel Energy, ranked 33rd in 2014 is now ranked 16th, with
20.41 million MWh reported sold. This was a 238.4% year-overyear increase. Xcels numbers include sales from its affiliates
whose sales in MISO are now reported to FERC as sales to the grid
operator.
The Energy Authority, ranked 18th, is the top seller among
municipal utilities, cooperatives and government agencies. It sold
19.44 million MWh in Q1 2015, which was an increase of 45.4%
over Q1 2014.
On March 1, 2014, SPP launched its day-ahead market, which
meant that there was only one month of those sales reported in
Q1 2014. TEA sold 9.79 million MWh of wholesale power in SPP
in the first quarter of 2015, or 51% of its total, boosting its
percentage increase over the first quarter of 2014.
Others who saw big jumps in sales in the first quarter were:
GDF Suez, ranked 22nd and up 29%; Westar, ranked 33rd and up
52.9%; Great Plains Energy, ranked 36th and up 72.6%. Table
follows on pages 21-29.
Jeffrey Ryser
Volume 20 / Issue 116 / Thursday, June 18, 2015
MEGAWATT DAILY
ISSN # 1088-4319
Megawatt Daily Questions? Email:
NAGas&Power@platts.com
Manager North America Gas and
Power Content
Editorial Director, North American

Gas and Power Pricing
Megawatt Daily is published daily by Platts, a division of McGraw Hill Financial. Registered
office Two Penn Plaza, 25th Floor, New York, NY 10121-2298
Mark Callahan
Officers of the Corporation: Harold McGraw III, Chairman; Doug Peterson, President and
Chief Executive Officer; Lucy Fato, Executive Vice President and General Counsel; Jack F.
Callahan, Jr., Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; Elizabeth OMelia, Senior
Vice President, Treasury Operations.
Rocco Canonica, +1-720-264-6626
Editorial Director, North American

Gas and Power Content
Anne Swedberg, +1-720-264-6728
James OConnell
Editors
Global Editorial Director, Power
Jeff Ryser, +1-713-658-3225
Sarah Cottle
Mark Watson, +1-713-658-3214

Spot Market Editors
Caitlin Laird, +1-713-303-1721
Kassia Micek, +1-713-655-2227
Eric Wieser, +1-202-383-2092
Correspondents
Housley Carr
Ethan Howland
Bob Matyi
Mary Powers
Chief Content Officer

Martin Fraenkel
Platts President
Larry Neal
Prices, indexes, assessments and other price information published herein are based on
material collected from actual market participants. Platts makes no warranties, express or
implied, as to the accuracy, adequacy or completeness of the data and other information
set forth in this publication (data) or as to the merchantability or fitness for a particular
use of the data. Platts assumes no liability in connection with any partys use of the data.
Corporate policy prohibits editorial personnel from holding any financial interest in companies they cover and from disclosing information prior to the publication date of an issue.
Copyright 2015 by Platts, McGraw Hill Financial
All rights reserved. No portion of this publication may be photocopied, reproduced, retransmitted, put into a computer system or otherwise redistributed without prior authorization
from Platts.
Permission is granted for those registered with the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) to
photocopy material herein for internal reference or personal use only, provided that appropriate payment is made to the CCC, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, phone
(978) 750-8400. Reproduction in any other form, or for any other purpose, is forbidden
without express permission of McGraw Hill Financial. For article reprints contact: The YGS
Group, phone +1-717-505-9701 x105. Text-only archives available on Dialog File 624,
Data Star, Factiva, LexisNexis, and Westlaw. Platts is a trademark of McGraw Hill Financial.
20
To reach Platts
E-mail:support@platts.com
North America
Tel:800-PLATTS-8 (toll-free)
+1-212-904-3070 (direct)
Latin America
Tel:+54-11-4121-4810
Europe & Middle East
Tel:+44-20-7176-6111
Asia Pacific
Tel:+65-6530-6430
Manager, Advertisement Sales

Kacey Comstock
Advertising
Tel : +1-720-264-6631
Megawatt Daily
2014 WHOLESALE POWER SALES STATISTICS

<---------------------------------------Q1 2015---------------------------------------->
<------------------------ Year 2014------------------------>

% CHG
% CHG

MKT FROM FROM
MKT
YR
No
Company
Q1 2015MWH
SHARE
Q4 2014 Q1 2014
2014MWH
SHARE
RK

Total Projected Sales *
1,228,000,000
Total Sales
1,200,231,357
4.0%
4.3%
4,844,290,710
4,844,290,710
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
Exelon Generation & Affiliates (2)

NRG Energy (2) (12)
Shell Energy North America
Nextera Energy Resources (2)
Calpine Affiliates (2)
PPL Energy Supply
Entergy Operating Companies
FirstEnergy Deregulated Affiliates
PSEG Power (9)
Citigroup Energy
AEP Energy Partners (1) (3)
Dynegy Affiliates
American Electric Power Regulated Utilities
EDF Trading North America
Duke Commercial Power
Xcel Energy
Entergy Wholesale Commodities
The Energy Authority
Duke Energy Regulated Utilities
BP Energy (2)
MidAmerican Energy Regulated Utilities (1)
GDF Suez North America (2)
Morgan Stanley Capital Group (1)
Luminant Energy (2)
JP Morgan Chase Bank Affiliates
Dominion Deregulated Affiliates (1) (12)
AES Regulated Utilities
Ameren Regulated Utilities
DTE Electric
Iberdrola Renewables Affiliates
Consumers Energy
FirstEnergy Regulated Utilities
Westar Energy
Wisconsin Electric Power
H Q Energy Services US
Great Plains Energy
Alliant Energy Regulated Utilities
Direct Energy Affiliates (1)
Oklahoma Gas & Electric
Cargill Power Markets
Equipower Resources (Energy Capital Partners)
LS Power Development Affiliates
GE Energy Financial Services (11)
Macquarie Energy (1)
Tenaska Affiliates (2) (13)
DTE Energy & Affiliates (1)
Sempra US Gas & Power
Powerex
Nebraska Public Power District
TransCanada Affiliates
Brookfield Power
Southern Regulated Utilities
TransAlta Energy Marketing
Bonneville Power Administration
Emera Affiliates
South Carolina Public Service Authority
Omaha Public Power District
Old Dominion Electric Co-op
J Aron (1)
Northern Indiana Public Service
ALLETE
EDFD Generation Affiliates (8)
Wabash Valley Power Association
Southern Power (12)
EDP Renewables North America
103,732,655
63,276,700
59,126,395
43,195,318
37,372,644
31,646,690
31,545,383
31,369,978
30,410,844
30,010,714
26,035,792
25,045,446
23,354,560
22,604,785
21,526,094
20,416,612
19,504,487
19,447,533
18,014,981
17,989,688
15,150,936
14,659,123
14,403,913
14,140,131
14,009,910
12,534,116
11,835,007
11,387,358
10,900,519
9,245,101
8,935,763
8,538,139
8,537,636
7,337,154
7,322,095
6,929,988
6,523,275
6,517,718
6,449,372
6,337,959
6,288,967
5,955,393
5,754,366
5,655,548
5,316,052
5,090,604
5,032,060
4,986,638
4,958,305
4,930,152
4,860,768
4,760,788
4,734,298
4,477,554
4,278,870
4,160,018
4,086,002
4,079,318
4,038,801
3,969,062
3,909,101
3,899,012
3,754,099
3,729,786
3,701,287
21
8.64%
5.27%
4.93%
3.60%
3.11%
2.64%
2.63%
2.61%
2.53%
2.50%
2.17%
2.09%
1.95%
1.88%
1.79%
1.70%
1.63%
1.62%
1.50%
1.50%
1.26%
1.22%
1.20%
1.18%
1.17%
1.04%
0.99%
0.95%
0.91%
0.77%
0.74%
0.71%
0.71%
0.61%
0.61%
0.58%
0.54%
0.54%
0.54%
0.53%
0.52%
0.50%
0.48%
0.47%
0.44%
0.42%
0.42%
0.42%
0.41%
0.41%
0.40%
0.40%
0.39%
0.37%
0.36%
0.35%
0.34%
0.34%
0.34%
0.33%
0.33%
0.32%
0.31%
0.31%
0.31%
0.1%
7.1%
-5.8%
2.9%
-1.9%
20.5%
-0.2%
-3.3%
13.9%
-22.4%
40.0%
-4.6%
13.9%
34.3%
14.5%
84.2%
-16.1%
9.6%
22.2%
-1.7%
-0.3%
28.6%
2.5%
3.6%
-19.9%
7.2%
-0.6%
12.1%
4.2%
10.6%
18.8%
12.1%
-3.7%
19.3%
22.7%
10.1%
17.4%
-14.4%
2.7%
-10.9%
-14.8%
40.5%
7.8%
6.9%
11.4%
1.1%
-10.7%
29.3%
13.4%
0.8%
7.7%
28.1%
-32.4%
330.0%
46.6%
6.1%
-14.2%
26.6%
0.2%
2.5%
6.9%
-12.4%
-0.6%
-35.9%
2.7%
14.0%
14.3%
4.1%
1.1%
0.2%
-6.0%
8.2%
-4.7%
3.5%
83.2%
20.2%
-17.8%
16.9%
-8.6%
28.2%
238.4%
-2.8%
45.4%
-4.2%
-11.1%
3.4%
29.0%
-11.1%
-20.5%
-19.3%
-12.8%
147.2%
-13.6%
1.7%
-6.4%
17.1%
-8.8%
52.9%
10.4%
10.4%
72.6%
6.3%
-36.9%
156.7%
1.0%
16.0%
125.3%
36.5%
-3.3%
18.6%
-27.3%
1.2%
16.6%
96.7%
25.7%
4.5%
-20.3%
-39.3%
62.3%
15.3%
-3.9%
52.0%
2.9%
-19.3%
-10.1%
-0.6%
4.6%
-5.1%
-21.4%
0.3%
395,689,352
238,957,922
268,331,379
167,711,809
152,907,599
115,595,241
128,865,917
124,360,928
111,055,078
107,775,106
78,609,276
107,253,519
86,712,006
86,762,707
73,416,818
36,458,041
88,915,238
69,280,040
67,246,533
75,446,463
54,719,397
58,973,877
59,189,540
66,839,023
71,192,147
52,181,403
34,025,495
47,260,169
42,353,733
37,297,553
31,570,633
32,796,210
33,265,845
25,426,548
23,807,998
23,503,794
22,588,139
40,869,506
24,707,717
26,571,809
28,603,760
14,589,570
19,800,513
21,361,421
20,152,433
21,096,147
20,634,524
20,533,146
17,324,272
19,460,639
19,655,602
19,150,994
26,560,371
12,835,091
15,041,780
16,692,345
16,715,326
13,277,379
15,517,478
15,472,563
14,327,732
16,257,241
15,185,934
23,911,497
12,884,780
8.17%
4.93%
5.54%
3.46%
3.16%
2.39%
2.66%
2.57%
2.29%
2.22%
1.62%
2.21%
1.79%
1.79%
1.52%
0.75%
1.84%
1.43%
1.39%
1.56%
1.13%
1.22%
1.22%
1.38%
1.47%
1.08%
0.70%
0.98%
0.87%
0.77%
0.65%
0.68%
0.69%
0.52%
0.49%
0.49%
0.47%
0.84%
0.51%
0.55%
0.59%
0.30%
0.41%
0.44%
0.42%
0.44%
0.43%
0.42%
0.36%
0.40%
0.41%
0.40%
0.55%
0.26%
0.31%
0.34%
0.35%
0.27%
0.32%
0.32%
0.30%
0.34%
0.31%
0.49%
0.27%
1
3
2
4
5
8
6
7
9
10
15
11
14
13
17
33
12
19
20
16
27
26
25
21
18
28
34
29
30
32
37
36
35
41
44
45
46
31
42
39
38
67
52
47
51
48
49
50
56
54
53
55
40
73
65
59
58
70
62
63
68
60
64
43
72
Megawatt Daily

<---------------------------------------Q1 2015---------------------------------------->
<------------------------ Year 2014------------------------>

% CHG
% CHG

MKT FROM FROM
MKT
YR
No
Company
Q1 2015MWH
SHARE
Q4 2014 Q1 2014
2014MWH
SHARE
RK
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
Power Authority of the State of New York

San Diego Gas & Electric
Wisconsin Public Service
Florida Power & Light
Cleco Power
Great River Energy
Public Utility District No 1 of Chelan County
Long Island Lighting d/b/a LIPA
Ohio Valley Electric
Eversource Energy (formerly Northeast Utilities Services)
Invenergy Investment
Noble Americas (1)
Consolidated Edison Energy Affiliates (1)
ConocoPhillips (1)
ArcLight Energy Partners Fund V
Grand River Dam Authority
Big Rivers Electric
American Municipal Power
Mag Energy Solutions
Fortis Utility Group
Entegra Power Group
Energy Transfer Partners (ETC Endure Energy)
Champion Energy Holdings (1)
CMS Energy Deregulated Affiliates
Vitol (1)
South Mississippi Electric Power Association
J-Power USA Generation (7)
Raven Power Holdings
Blackstone Group
Western Farmers Electric
Seattle City Light
Western Area Power Administration
Panda Power Funds
Salt River Project
EIF Channelview Cogeneration
El Paso Electric
E ON Climate & Renewables
Brayton Point Energy (Energy Capital Partners)
Electric Energy
PPL Regulated Utilities
Odessa Power Holdings
Midland Cogeneration Venture
Dominion Virginia Power
Occidental Power Services (1)
National Grid Deregulated Affiliates
Southern Indiana Gas & Electric
Wolverine Power Supply Co-op
Empire District Electric
Enel Green Power North America
Mach Gen
Arizona Public Service
Golden Spread Electric
Avista Corp
Hoosier Energy Rural Electric
Iberdrola USA
Sunflower Electric Power
Green Mountain Power
EDF Renewable Energy
Basin Electric Power
TAQA Gen X
Red Oak Power
Pacific Northwest Generating Co-op
Cooperative Energy
Associated Electric Co-op
Arkansas Electric Co-op
North Carolina Electric Membership Corp
Sam Rayburn Municipal Power Agency
North Carolina Municipal Power Agency #1
Deseret Generation & Transmission
3,464,248
3,389,294
3,270,620
3,257,738
3,212,590
3,098,424
2,919,330
2,876,042
2,815,411
2,715,115
2,686,771
2,676,613
2,655,311
2,513,934
2,450,094
2,434,204
2,434,159
2,381,092
2,303,489
2,288,026
2,244,136
2,237,757
2,237,345
2,208,731
2,193,780
2,193,727
2,145,394
2,085,007
2,081,270
1,960,567
1,900,596
1,821,246
1,819,132
1,727,416
1,686,690
1,679,635
1,676,158
1,606,080
1,587,618
1,577,674
1,570,267
1,566,316
1,528,031
1,526,175
1,481,193
1,454,388
1,391,682
1,384,055
1,358,910
1,335,263
1,324,856
1,302,590
1,254,117
1,239,823
1,234,008
1,227,209
1,226,166
1,218,049
1,197,143
1,191,815
1,185,410
1,171,369
1,166,878
1,156,518
1,155,762
1,137,848
1,135,868
1,132,103
1,121,543
0.29%
0.28%
0.27%
0.27%
0.27%
0.26%
0.24%
0.24%
0.23%
0.23%
0.22%
0.22%
0.22%
0.21%
0.20%
0.20%
0.20%
0.20%
0.19%
0.19%
0.19%
0.19%
0.19%
0.18%
0.18%
0.18%
0.18%
0.17%
0.17%
0.16%
0.16%
0.15%
0.15%
0.14%
0.14%
0.14%
0.14%
0.13%
0.13%
0.13%
0.13%
0.13%
0.13%
0.13%
0.12%
0.12%
0.12%
0.12%
0.11%
0.11%
0.11%
0.11%
0.10%
0.10%
0.10%
0.10%
0.10%
0.10%
0.10%
0.10%
0.10%
0.10%
0.10%
0.10%
0.10%
0.09%
0.09%
0.09%
0.09%
22
7.3%
-10.0%
11.7%
43.7%
-7.6%
-10.1%
42.7%
17.7%
13.9%
21.3%
-17.7%
16.3%
27.5%
21.4%
NA
1.9%
-1.3%
-0.9%
24.7%
-0.7%
68.0%
-42.4%
38.2%
6.6%
68.9%
72.9%
62.5%
123.9%
7.5%
10.6%
124.2%
-16.3%
45.4%
-36.0%
-0.1%
10.5%
-23.6%
259.0%
-14.9%
202.6%
32.0%
66.0%
-18.9%
-18.6%
29.6%
14.7%
8.9%
22.7%
3.8%
5.1%
-19.0%
-25.5%
44.0%
-17.5%
34.2%
5.9%
18.6%
-0.1%
18.2%
-17.0%
-17.2%
-1.5%
10.4%
8.9%
20.3%
-15.2%
-0.6%
-20.0%
-4.6%
3.5%
3.3%
15.8%
33.6%
37.4%
-8.8%
64.0%
-7.8%
-17.2%
5.8%
3.4%
8.0%
42.7%
69.8%
NA
91.5%
-28.4%
31.0%
65.7%
NA
3.0%
-27.3%
42.5%
14.8%
28.0%
10.1%
15.0%
-25.3%
86.4%
106.2%
124.3%
0.2%
NA
-13.9%
22.6%
-1.9%
-32.3%
-5.6%
-14.8%
104.9%
45.2%
53.8%
3.7%
-34.1%
11.1%
-8.9%
1.5%
130.9%
-1.0%
76.8%
-15.3%
-29.3%
1.7%
3.4%
-23.1%
93.1%
-1.0%
-2.3%
1.8%
42.0%
42.9%
-1.7%
-2.9%
39.4%
101.8%
-14.6%
NA
-20.5%
-2.1%
14,032,423
15,560,521
11,632,034
8,668,465
13,236,822
12,570,044
9,014,266
11,046,329
11,193,643
8,875,947
10,832,754
9,066,364
7,643,423
7,269,403
-
8,484,109
10,020,722
9,070,372
5,932,102
4,333,203
9,554,812
16,837,657
6,320,648
7,523,744
4,556,949
6,731,984
6,887,394
6,547,284
7,284,974
6,902,628
4,524,348
8,733,986
2,502,354
8,624,157
6,008,305
6,643,157
8,767,127
2,693,810
7,210,374
2,429,083
4,782,049
3,521,248
6,111,803
8,555,756
5,029,280
5,970,378
5,140,931
4,105,317
4,920,056
4,833,341
6,166,072
10,150,245
4,577,673
5,019,027
4,747,030
3,945,726
4,383,556
5,127,969
4,503,350
4,953,463
5,430,628
4,808,209
4,585,021
4,099,486
3,283,386
5,020,052
1,142,245
5,081,965
4,740,498
0.29%
0.32%
0.24%
0.18%
0.27%
0.26%
0.19%
0.23%
0.23%
0.18%
0.22%
0.19%
0.16%
0.15%
0.00%
0.18%
0.21%
0.19%
0.12%
0.09%
0.20%
0.35%
0.13%
0.16%
0.09%
0.14%
0.14%
0.14%
0.15%
0.14%
0.09%
0.18%
0.05%
0.18%
0.12%
0.14%
0.18%
0.06%
0.15%
0.05%
0.10%
0.07%
0.13%
0.18%
0.10%
0.12%
0.11%
0.08%
0.10%
0.10%
0.13%
0.21%
0.09%
0.10%
0.10%
0.08%
0.09%
0.11%
0.09%
0.10%
0.11%
0.10%
0.09%
0.08%
0.07%
0.10%
0.02%
0.10%
0.10%
69
61
75
89
71
74
84
77
76
86
78
83
93
96
NA
92
80
82
108
135
81
57
103
94
129
100
99
102
95
98
130
88
180
90
106
101
87
177
97
182
122
153
105
91
114
107
111
138
118
119
104
79
128
116
123
144
133
112
131
117
109
120
127
139
157
115
231
113
124
Megawatt Daily

<---------------------------------------Q1 2015---------------------------------------->
<------------------------ Year 2014------------------------>

% CHG
% CHG

MKT FROM FROM
MKT
YR
No
Company
Q1 2015MWH
SHARE
Q4 2014 Q1 2014
2014MWH
SHARE
RK
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
Diamond Generating
La Paloma Generating
Mercuria Energy America (1)
ExxonMobil Power & Gas Services
Granite Ridge Energy
Calypso Energy Holdings (EIF)
Covanta Energy
Wheelabrator Technologies (12)
Puget Sound Energy
TCT Generation Holdings
Illinois Municipal Electric Agency
South Carolina Generating
Otter Tail Power
North American Power I (10)
Indiana Municipal Power Agency
Kleen Energy Systems
Optim Energy (2)
El Paso Marketing
BHE Renewables (6)
Pacific Summit Energy (1)
Portland General Electric
Ontario Power Generation Energy Trading
Northwestern Energy
Chevron Affiliates
AES Companies
Empire Gen Holdings (Energy Capital Partners)
WPPI Energy
Southern California Edison (5)
Oglethorpe Power
Somerset Cayuga Holding
Longview Power
Atlantic Power Holdings (1)
Essential Power
Algonquin Power Affiliates
Astoria Project Partners (14)
Topaz Power Holdings
Caithness Long Island
PEPCO Regulated Utilities
CE Generation
Infigen Energy
Missouri Joint Municipal Electric Utility Commission
TerraForm Power
Veolia Energy North America Holdings
The Dow Chemical
Saracen Energy
Pattern Energy Group
Enbridge Holdings (Power)
Minnkota Power
Public Service Co of New Mexico
Quantum Utility Generation
Freeport McMoRan Copper & Gold Energy Services
Buckeye Power
Idaho Power
Madison Gas & Electric
Royal Bank of Canada Affiliates (1)
Public Utility District No 2 of Grant County
Plum Point Energy Associates
Consolidated Edison Regulated Utilities
EverPower Wind Holdings
Rainbow Energy Marketing
MDU Resources Group
Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia
Southeast Powergen
TEC Energy
UGI Utilities & Affiliates
Noble Environmental Power
Terra-Gen Power
National Grid USA Service
Alcoa Power (1)
1,104,096
1,081,039
1,076,042
1,000,411
995,430
992,149
986,772
982,194
969,320
959,193
946,634
920,489
915,644
908,413
876,347
875,666
871,635
855,372
849,579
840,136
826,321
817,967
787,339
785,303
756,886
756,502
744,412
735,586
718,774
718,183
712,301
710,213
697,283
695,736
685,659
671,521
670,272
670,230
658,724
655,954
648,911
648,293
636,210
607,135
606,992
600,327
598,862
596,592
587,350
576,411
564,220
560,772
553,701
552,212
538,684
535,448
528,717
516,535
513,791
499,812
494,880
492,160
464,961
464,735
459,505
454,805
453,683
448,936
439,799
0.09%
0.09%
0.09%
0.08%
0.08%
0.08%
0.08%
0.08%
0.08%
0.08%
0.08%
0.08%
0.08%
0.08%
0.07%
0.07%
0.07%
0.07%
0.07%
0.07%
0.07%
0.07%
0.07%
0.07%
0.06%
0.06%
0.06%
0.06%
0.06%
0.06%
0.06%
0.06%
0.06%
0.06%
0.06%
0.06%
0.06%
0.06%
0.05%
0.05%
0.05%
0.05%
0.05%
0.05%
0.05%
0.05%
0.05%
0.05%
0.05%
0.05%
0.05%
0.05%
0.05%
0.05%
0.04%
0.04%
0.04%
0.04%
0.04%
0.04%
0.04%
0.04%
0.04%
0.04%
0.04%
0.04%
0.04%
0.04%
0.04%
23
-5.3%
-51.8%
26171.4%
10.4%
-8.2%
30.3%
-11.2%
-5.3%
-8.5%
32.4%
NA
31.3%
-11.0%
143.1%
-11.8%
-19.5%
7.7%
-10.7%
8.4%
69.1%
-11.3%
-8.3%
10.3%
-3.2%
-48.4%
0.7%
5.5%
NA
172.5%
142.4%
-29.8%
-12.2%
23.5%
-13.0%
11.5%
-6.2%
12.3%
19.1%
-3.1%
-13.6%
-4.8%
448.9%
-0.8%
-45.0%
18.5%
-1.2%
139.1%
42.6%
-12.5%
83.1%
37.8%
16.0%
-10.7%
17.2%
22.1%
67.8%
-29.6%
40.6%
-3.7%
18.2%
-12.3%
-35.9%
-3.0%
59.4%
84.1%
3.4%
13.5%
-13.0%
-24.2%
14.3%
-47.5%
370.3%
-5.1%
267.5%
-30.5%
-0.6%
1.2%
12.2%
-4.5%
NA
29.7%
-24.9%
30.8%
-2.8%
226.6%
-30.8%
7.3%
53.7%
112.6%
18.7%
434.9%
108.0%
88.6%
-26.5%
364.6%
-4.9%
NA
79.8%
-56.3%
-31.9%
-27.5%
41.2%
79.0%
8.8%
-22.3%
-0.8%
-19.4%
-16.1%
-19.5%
-2.0%
519.0%
26.3%
1481.1%
515.7%
37.2%
138.2%
29.9%
-21.1%
193.1%
-4.4%
-17.6%
-33.7%
-16.9%
85.6%
101.5%
-29.9%
-11.3%
31.1%
-42.3%
-23.4%
-10.1%
409.1%
1510.4%
-4.0%
-7.0%
-48.1%
12.5%
-28.8%
4,724,983
9,009,010
233,959
3,242,369
3,534,364
4,269,724
4,385,291
4,041,300
3,948,848
4,353,325
-
3,702,495
3,987,200
2,707,045
3,665,498
3,323,254
4,786,954
3,660,335
3,346,511
1,892,023
4,222,168
1,723,222
2,079,066
2,840,051
5,206,085
2,723,980
2,901,636
66,118,399
1,700,040
2,697,419
3,691,455
3,671,279
2,808,201
2,309,566
2,521,606
3,450,759
2,393,736
2,548,459
2,865,359
2,885,811
2,976,782
517,963
2,409,680
2,740,649
1,139,046
2,230,102
992,684
2,061,836
2,809,312
1,075,096
2,262,061
2,201,578
2,288,586
2,223,302
1,318,591
1,190,100
2,327,071
1,600,737
1,703,769
3,185,544
2,347,629
2,868,521
1,759,740
420,200
1,500,506
1,587,293
3,086,759
2,093,394
2,087,724
0.10%
0.19%
0.00%
0.07%
0.07%
0.09%
0.09%
0.08%
0.08%
0.09%
0.00%
0.08%
0.08%
0.06%
0.08%
0.07%
0.10%
0.08%
0.07%
0.04%
0.09%
0.04%
0.04%
0.06%
0.11%
0.06%
0.06%
1.36%
0.04%
0.06%
0.08%
0.08%
0.06%
0.05%
0.05%
0.07%
0.05%
0.05%
0.06%
0.06%
0.06%
0.01%
0.05%
0.06%
0.02%
0.05%
0.02%
0.04%
0.06%
0.02%
0.05%
0.05%
0.05%
0.05%
0.03%
0.02%
0.05%
0.03%
0.04%
0.07%
0.05%
0.06%
0.04%
0.01%
0.03%
0.03%
0.06%
0.04%
0.04%
125
85
335
158
152
136
132
141
143
134
NA
146
142
175
150
156
121
151
155
202
137
207
196
168
110
174
164
22
211
176
147
149
172
188
179
154
184
178
167
165
162
279
183
173
232
191
237
197
171
234
190
193
189
192
224
227
187
217
210
159
186
166
206
291
221
219
161
194
195
Megawatt Daily

<---------------------------------------Q1 2015---------------------------------------->
<------------------------ Year 2014------------------------>

% CHG
% CHG

MKT FROM FROM
MKT
YR
No
Company
Q1 2015MWH
SHARE
Q4 2014 Q1 2014
2014MWH
SHARE
RK
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
Xoom Energy (1)

Osaka Gas Energy America
Acciona Wind Energy USA
Westmoreland Partners
Black Hills Deregulated Affiliates
Tri State Generation & Transmission Association
Naturener USA
Shell Wind Energy
XO Energy Affiliates
ReEnergy Holdings
Black Hills Regulated Utilities
Ri-Corp Development
Starwood Energy Group (18)
Public Service Electric & Gas
Clear Choice Energy
Twin Eagle Resource Management (1)
Castleton Commodities International (2)
Wind Capital Group
AltaGas Power Holdings (US)
Eastman Cogeneration
Verde Energy USA Holdings
Shell Oil Co QF Affiliates
Ormat Nevada
Star West Generation
AL Bayonne Holdings (ArcLight Capital)
Platte River Power Authority
Bicent Power
South Carolina Electric & Gas
Duquesne Deregulated Affiliates
Meadwestvaco
Domtar
Sun Coal & Coke
Caithness Shepherds Flat
Capistrano Wind Partners
Samchully Power & Utilities 1
ALLETE Clean Energy
Sapphire Power Holdings
Google Energy
Barclays Bank (1)
Hermiston Generating
MP2 Energy
Newmont Nevada Energy Investment
Canadian Wood Products-Montreal
Orion Energy Group/Vision Energy
Northern Star Generation
Sumitomo Corp of America
Capital Power
BlackRock NTR Renewable Power Fund
RENU Power Holdings (ArcLight Capital)
Anahau Energy
Eurus Energy America
Exelon Regulated Utilities
Abengoa Solar
Lockport Energy Associates
E I du Pont de Nemours
New Brunswick Energy Marketing
Tennessee Valley Authority
Tyr Energy (16)
Panther Creek Power Operating
Verso Maine Power Holdings
RES Americas
Indeck Companies
Broad River Power (Energy Capital Partners)
GREC Intermediate Holdings
AK Electric Supply
Gestamp Wind North America
North American Power and Gas
Berkshire Power
John Hancock/Prudential Capital (17)
438,707
437,833
424,499
419,195
416,499
394,495
375,712
374,086
370,408
365,311
363,689
350,547
348,138
346,741
322,250
316,578
313,135
302,055
293,078
290,102
289,727
287,759
285,934
278,115
269,421
259,797
257,693
245,700
241,720
240,453
237,595
235,247
232,890
228,609
223,912
221,084
218,981
218,428
214,590
209,318
205,472
203,590
195,178
194,022
188,080
187,458
187,300
183,085
182,636
177,560
175,747
174,583
173,293
171,546
168,968
167,848
165,188
163,235
160,948
155,209
153,787
151,409
147,305
143,554
143,131
141,976
139,190
137,131
136,671
0.04%
0.04%
0.04%
0.03%
0.03%
0.03%
0.03%
0.03%
0.03%
0.03%
0.03%
0.03%
0.03%
0.03%
0.03%
0.03%
0.03%
0.03%
0.02%
0.02%
0.02%
0.02%
0.02%
0.02%
0.02%
0.02%
0.02%
0.02%
0.02%
0.02%
0.02%
0.02%
0.02%
0.02%
0.02%
0.02%
0.02%
0.02%
0.02%
0.02%
0.02%
0.02%
0.02%
0.02%
0.02%
0.02%
0.02%
0.02%
0.02%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
24
20.2%
18.8%
-8.2%
38.5%
-11.5%
14.9%
-0.2%
-21.3%
22.8%
5.2%
1.4%
1.1%
506.3%
-25.2%
11.5%
5.1%
709.6%
-8.2%
-50.7%
-9.8%
173.4%
5.7%
21.3%
-66.2%
15.3%
109.4%
-41.6%
10.8%
34.9%
10.0%
15.0%
20.9%
-32.4%
-12.7%
NA
26.5%
-54.0%
-15.1%
-63.9%
-32.7%
700.7%
-44.4%
-10.3%
1.3%
-21.0%
-10.3%
-7.1%
81.2%
305.7%
1156.1%
-17.5%
-33.8%
45.9%
100.9%
-68.3%
-35.9%
61.3%
-37.0%
25.4%
-7.8%
-15.6%
10.5%
315.7%
-0.3%
-3.0%
-8.8%
-37.1%
-51.5%
-26.0%
11.4%
-3.6%
-20.6%
-1.9%
-2.4%
-49.2%
11.5%
-14.9%
-22.8%
6.8%
-25.8%
4.1%
NA
-12.0%
101.4%
26.1%
21.4%
-20.0%
70.0%
69.7%
224.4%
8.8%
8.8%
-62.0%
62.2%
9.6%
-38.1%
0.9%
10.2%
-0.9%
-2.9%
29.9%
-34.2%
NA
NA
86.5%
-52.0%
4.7%
-77.7%
-40.6%
62207.8%
-55.1%
138.2%
15.5%
-2.8%
-9.0%
16.5%
170.9%
106.3%
1891.5%
-31.7%
-86.5%
55.9%
-28.8%
-59.9%
-59.0%
-39.0%
-29.4%
-8.4%
-3.3%
-26.6%
-11.2%
73.8%
-6.2%
7.0%
-14.2%
-58.7%
-19.6%
-23.4%
1,552,266
1,963,160
1,824,458
1,597,698
1,760,196
2,381,029
1,115,680
1,685,638
1,706,150
1,297,277
1,667,108
1,423,723
57,420
1,933,850
972,994
2,827,843
426,179
1,293,968
1,719,195
937,272
571,632
1,020,860
897,779
4,592,204
765,069
770,173
1,619,201
958,427
858,676
955,430
921,070
743,588
1,788,568
708,046
-
521,245
2,041,484
867,147
3,109,855
1,162,637
74,902
1,638,646
582,722
597,666
1,071,246
880,462
744,575
293,196
635,176
71,308
917,606
2,913,615
608,571
392,865
1,931,174
984,513
671,755
791,124
662,686
867,613
748,198
502,642
388,811
578,211
562,146
545,395
1,394,142
1,187,624
638,334
0.03%
0.04%
0.04%
0.03%
0.04%
0.05%
0.02%
0.03%
0.04%
0.03%
0.03%
0.03%
0.00%
0.04%
0.02%
0.06%
0.01%
0.03%
0.04%
0.02%
0.01%
0.02%
0.02%
0.09%
0.02%
0.02%
0.03%
0.02%
0.02%
0.02%
0.02%
0.02%
0.04%
0.01%
0.00%
0.01%
0.04%
0.02%
0.06%
0.02%
0.00%
0.03%
0.01%
0.01%
0.02%
0.02%
0.02%
0.01%
0.01%
0.00%
0.02%
0.06%
0.01%
0.01%
0.04%
0.02%
0.01%
0.02%
0.01%
0.02%
0.02%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.03%
0.02%
0.01%
220
199
203
218
205
185
233
212
209
225
213
222
424
200
240
169
290
226
208
243
274
236
246
126
255
254
215
241
251
242
244
258
204
261
NA
278
198
250
160
230
409
214
272
271
235
247
257
315
266
412
245
163
269
296
201
238
262
253
264
249
256
281
297
273
275
276
223
228
265
Megawatt Daily

<---------------------------------------Q1 2015---------------------------------------->
<------------------------ Year 2014------------------------>

% CHG
% CHG

MKT FROM FROM
MKT
YR
No
Company
Q1 2015MWH
SHARE
Q4 2014 Q1 2014
2014MWH
SHARE
RK
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
PBF Holding Affiliates

Southwest Generation Utilities
Competitive Power Ventures
Peabody Energy
RPM Access
Berry Petroleum
Broadrock Renewables
DB Energy Trading
Credit Suisse Energy (1)
Safeway
Fibromin
Zone J Tolling (ArcLight Capital)
Bruce Power
Alliance Power
Hudson Ranch Power I
East Kentucky Power Co-op
Cannon Power Group
Glacial Energy Holdings (1)
White Creek Wind I
Third Planet Windpower
Lexington Generating
Ingenco Holdings
Florida Municipal Power Agency
Centre Lane Trading
Dairyland Power
Cogentrix Energy
BNP Paribas Energy Trading (1)
Alliant Energy Deregulated Affiliates
SD Warren
Panoche Energy Center
Gamesa Energy USA
Plant-E Corp
RC Cape May Holdings
MATEP LLC
Kapstone Paper & Packaging
Natural Gas Exchange (1)
Burgess Holdings
Kelson Holdings
Mt Carmel Cogen
Institutional Tax Equity Investors (15)
Greenleaf Power
Emera Maine
New Hope Power Partnership
Weyerhaeuser
Wayzata Investment Partners
The Monterey Companies
IIF US Holding 2
RockTenn (formerly Simpson Tacoma Kraft)
Lockhart Power
Crius Energy Affiliates (formerly Regional Energy)
AIM Development (USA)
Heritage Sustainable Energy
Alternative Earth Resources
MATEP LP
Mosaic Fertilizer
Sabine Cogen (ArcLights 50% ownership)
Kimberly-Clark
Cobb Electric Membership
UBS International Infrastructure Fund
Tesoro Refining & Marketing
IKEA Group
PEI Power
Golden Spread Panhandle Wind Ranch
Williams Flexible Generation
Bloom Energy
Alliance Energy Group Affiliates
Innovative Energy Systems Affiliates
Harvard Dedicated Energy
Maxim Power USA Affiliates
129,376
128,718
124,574
124,295
123,260
119,655
107,991
107,950
107,950
107,950
101,268
100,431
99,351
98,128
97,691
97,579
97,383
94,372
92,623
92,484
91,378
90,701
90,206
86,390
85,554
83,394
81,899
80,921
80,494
79,607
79,004
77,635
77,106
75,125
73,033
72,000
71,848
71,559
70,329
69,939
68,528
68,364
68,103
67,127
67,114
66,250
66,104
65,551
65,543
64,690
63,862
63,716
63,176
62,886
61,905
59,893
59,847
59,278
58,507
57,579
57,333
57,014
57,007
56,611
56,398
56,239
56,074
54,810
54,726
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
25
106.9%
-38.5%
-14.9%
-11.3%
-6.1%
-20.7%
-2.1%
-97.6%
-2.3%
15.9%
-1.7%
15.0%
465.9%
1.2%
-14.4%
42.0%
-18.6%
531.2%
-21.9%
-16.1%
17.9%
18.7%
-1.2%
75.0%
21.3%
59.2%
NA
13.9%
78.4%
-50.3%
-1.1%
179.1%
415.5%
19.1%
-4.4%
37.9%
-40.6%
-66.4%
-4.9%
8.1%
-31.5%
-19.1%
10.7%
-29.2%
-42.9%
-59.4%
NA
-18.7%
22.0%
-14.4%
NA
2.0%
-1.6%
-16.3%
55.5%
162.8%
-6.9%
63.3%
-14.4%
21.7%
NA
107.3%
-14.1%
-4.2%
-2.3%
163.7%
-53.1%
14.8%
10.3%
175.3%
90.3%
-17.4%
10.1%
-2.7%
-21.5%
12.0%
-99.4%
0.0%
44.2%
-6.1%
-19.0%
99.1%
0.1%
-1.4%
-44.4%
-26.7%
53.3%
-29.3%
-28.7%
46.4%
32.4%
36.5%
234.6%
1.7%
-27.4%
NA
20.0%
7.8%
-35.4%
-62.7%
NA
-54.0%
-0.6%
0.9%
NA
108.3%
54.6%
4.8%
NA
-2.3%
-0.5%
-8.9%
-24.1%
-87.5%
-75.9%
NA
4.6%
-14.3%
25.1%
NA
-10.3%
1.9%
-12.2%
NA
36.3%
18.4%
-25.1%
NA
2.1%
NA
-1.8%
-26.2%
-0.1%
5.2%
-37.2%
-53.5%
14.8%
-9.5%
238,749
832,602
603,586
487,104
448,909
608,798
415,108
59,647,403
478,800
356,682
412,284
484,004
143,503
365,095
429,181
438,536
671,548
119,589
544,410
446,478
315,457
270,045
312,779
223,246
310,813
266,243
4,082,412
221,301
184,706
709,648
401,075
27,811
233,663
256,998
300,196
87,000
286,812
631,746
279,936
96,947
408,651
309,078
240,074
343,716
2,815,216
980,762
-
311,152
261,129
284,531
-
233,316
237,998
298,162
55,566
162,843
251,965
176,737
116,065
218,953
-
201,843
293,876
243,684
872,547
141,495
483,316
207,318
177,805
0.00%
0.02%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
1.23%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.00%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.00%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.00%
0.01%
0.01%
0.08%
0.00%
0.00%
0.01%
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
0.01%
0.01%
0.00%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.00%
0.01%
0.01%
0.00%
0.01%
0.06%
0.02%
0.00%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.01%
0.01%
0.02%
0.00%
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
333
252
270
282
286
268
292
24
285
300
293
283
370
299
289
288
263
379
277
287
306
322
308
338
310
323
140
340
351
260
295
451
336
327
312
400
316
267
319
391
294
311
332
302
170
239
NA
309
325
318
NA
337
334
313
426
361
329
356
383
342
NA
347
314
331
248
372
284
345
355
Megawatt Daily

<---------------------------------------Q1 2015---------------------------------------->
<------------------------ Year 2014------------------------>

% CHG
% CHG

MKT FROM FROM
MKT
YR
No
Company
Q1 2015MWH
SHARE
Q4 2014 Q1 2014
2014MWH
SHARE
RK
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
Provider Power
Traxys North America
Vineland Energy
Gulf Oil
Tampa Electric
Dynasty Power
Foster Wheeler
Seminole Electric
Peninsula Power
Wellhead Electric
Allied Energy Resources
Discount Power
Babcock & Wilcox Power Generation Group
Rockland Eagle Point Power Generation
Lakeswind Power Partners
Ocean State Power
Novo BioPower
Record Hill Wind Holdings
Upper Peninsula Power
Aequitas Energy
Westwood Generation
Spark Energy (1)
Shipley Choice
Gradient Resources
Plainfield Renewable Energy Holdings
Diamond Shamrock/Sunray Wind
The Proctor & Gamble Paper Products
Blue Earth Minnesota Holdings
DeWind (12)
KOSEP USA
Gamma Genco CV (KKR)
Horse Butte I Holding
Guttman Energy
Cirrus Wind Energy
Sustainable Star
Solano 3 Wind Holding
US Geothermal
Macpherson Green Power
Solea Energy
PhIllips 66
Arcelormittal USA
BayWa re Wind
American Powernet Management (1)
Park Power
Northbrook New York
Element Power US
Ridgewind Power Partners
Promet Energy Partners
Koda Energy
Brightsource Energy
Galt Power
RLD Resources
FMR Affiliates
MTW Resources
Sterling Energy Group
Merrill Lynch Commodities (1)
TrailStone NA Holdings
Linde Energy Services (1)
Woodland Pulp
Sunshine Gas Producers/EIF
PH Glatfelter
Pure Energy
Horizon Power and Light
Nevada Solar One
Ever-Green Energy
Mega Energy Holdings
Electron Hydro
Coronal Group
Entrust Energy East ( formerly North Eastern States)
54,260
54,063
53,975
53,738
53,707
53,311
52,160
52,091
52,067
52,060
49,600
47,620
47,596
46,913
45,906
45,223
44,841
43,532
42,388
42,039
41,613
40,623
40,176
38,887
38,817
38,638
38,614
38,256
36,734
36,461
35,683
35,458
34,764
34,465
33,463
32,420
32,291
31,934
31,707
31,500
30,298
28,051
27,143
26,999
24,719
24,689
24,660
24,090
23,848
23,775
23,747
22,846
22,040
21,817
21,783
21,590
21,004
20,814
20,367
19,832
19,211
19,041
18,944
18,755
18,494
17,961
17,529
16,750
16,428
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
26
21945.0%
-13.4%
-2.3%
63.3%
-39.1%
-33.6%
-20.7%
-45.4%
NA
53.6%
226.3%
4.3%
15.1%
-70.1%
3.8%
-80.4%
-14.1%
16.8%
-7.3%
67.8%
-24.8%
30.4%
31.9%
9.3%
-14.7%
-14.2%
14.1%
-1.7%
-11.0%
-11.1%
12.6%
-18.4%
200.9%
-2.2%
230.8%
-12.4%
-8.8%
-13.5%
-54.3%
20.9%
52.5%
22.1%
-12.1%
60.3%
-41.1%
-7.0%
4.5%
0.0%
-1.6%
-9.9%
15.8%
-47.2%
1123.2%
-19.6%
27.4%
-75.6%
-47.5%
-15.6%
-3.3%
3.6%
3.9%
-47.3%
4740.3%
25.4%
4.7%
12.8%
104.6%
521.0%
380.1%
-3.7%
-12.8%
0.0%
227.0%
-49.7%
105.3%
40.7%
NA
NA
71.6%
100.0%
-53.9%
-9.5%
318.7%
83.2%
-9.2%
-11.1%
3.3%
509.0%
NA
-28.9%
201.6%
265.4%
10.1%
34.8%
-26.7%
-2.9%
61.5%
-33.4%
-33.4%
5.7%
-27.7%
NA
-17.5%
65.2%
-19.4%
-11.5%
9.2%
NA
20.3%
-33.1%
-2.9%
-15.9%
439.7%
-29.2%
-28.5%
-9.9%
0.0%
133.4%
177.6%
-91.1%
-45.7%
469.1%
-31.9%
20.3%
-91.2%
NA
42.1%
75.4%
NA
-63.9%
-54.9%
246.7%
0.6%
-22.2%
419.7%
NA
NA
533.0%
85,287
246,793
219,000
102,050
260,977
187,568
212,166
285,460
-
147,301
56,800
270,595
182,335
263,331
144,654
1,180,652
206,215
124,220
74,936
48,002
212,800
97,928
104,743
120,635
102,866
191,460
100,445
111,850
185,075
183,773
184,570
164,442
27,468
139,330
67,810
343,100
119,236
128,761
222,704
91,955
150,133
93,530
141,569
53,478
154,240
117,458
87,662
96,360
85,058
91,549
314,510
167,655
7,880
123,786
83,464
509,925
45,193
74,568
57,864
24,960
126,904
158,356
15,450
117,806
86,900
39,499
8,568
2,697
18,414
0.00%
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.01%
0.00%
0.01%
0.00%
0.02%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
402
330
341
388
326
349
344
317
NA
367
425
321
354
324
369
229
346
376
408
432
343
390
386
378
387
348
389
384
350
353
352
360
453
373
414
303
380
374
339
395
365
394
371
428
364
382
399
392
403
396
307
358
490
377
404
280
434
410
422
457
375
363
467
381
401
438
484
517
463
Megawatt Daily

<---------------------------------------Q1 2015---------------------------------------->
<------------------------ Year 2014------------------------>

% CHG
% CHG

MKT FROM FROM
MKT
YR
No
Company
Q1 2015MWH
SHARE
Q4 2014 Q1 2014
2014MWH
SHARE
RK
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
TriEagle Energy
Freif Redwood Holdings
BBPC
Turner Renewable Energy
OCI Solar Power
Fiera Axium Infrastructure
BTG Pactual Commodities (US)
Utility Expense Reduction
PEPCO Deregulated Affiliates (1)
Astral Energy
Goal Line
L&P Electric
Sunpeak Solar
Simon Solar Farm
Nordic Energy Services
Black Oak Energy
RET Capital (formerly K Road Power Holdings)
Icetec.com
Great Bay Energy
FRV AE Solar
USG&E Investor Group
Roseberg Forest Products
Interstate Gas Supply (1)
LISF Solar Trust
Stream Gas & Electric Affiliates
UIL Deregulated Affiliates
San Gorgonio Farms
East Ridge Projects (4)
C & T Enterprises Affiliates
Sperian Energy
BioFuels Washington
Aspen Power
Unitil Companies
AP&G Holdings
Malacha Hydro
GBC Metals
Madison Paper Industries
Holcim (US)
Border Energy Electric Services
BlueRock Energy
Evergreen Community Power
Clipper Windpower (Silver Star I 15%)
Guzman Energy
Duquesne Light
Koch Industries Affiliates
Ethical Electric
Hawkeye Energy Greenport
Palmco Power Affiliates
Newark Energy Center (EIF)
Oklahoma Cogeneration
Land OLakes
First Solar
Beaver Ridge Wind
Great Bay Power Affiliates
Great American Power
Eligo Energy
Twin Cities Power Holdings
PowerSouth Energy
Premier Empire Energy
Commercial Energy of Montana
SmartEnergy Holdings
Gerdau Ameristeel Energy
Juwi Wind
KES Kingsburg
Capital Energy
South Jersey Industries Affiliates
Lexington Power & Light
Apex Clean Energy Holdings
Merck & Co
16,334
15,932
15,335
14,585
14,410
14,252
13,843
13,579
12,811
12,801
12,685
12,667
12,573
12,276
12,037
11,286
11,234
10,546
10,489
10,487
10,473
9,870
9,861
9,213
9,138
8,645
8,558
8,492
8,477
7,398
7,254
7,217
7,190
7,119
6,918
6,711
6,384
6,324
6,054
6,039
5,890
5,829
5,809
5,775
5,222
5,036
4,989
4,279
4,156
4,083
4,081
4,033
3,943
3,760
3,682
3,295
3,190
3,160
3,056
3,054
3,033
3,016
2,864
2,829
2,820
2,738
2,587
2,507
2,453
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
27
0.6%
NA
36.2%
5.2%
88.9%
NA
75.1%
103.4%
12.5%
185.4%
-59.8%
-41.9%
9.2%
-4.2%
16.7%
639.5%
16.5%
275.8%
340.9%
-8.0%
-23.4%
3.3%
-45.8%
17.2%
-49.2%
196.6%
-33.2%
2.6%
145.2%
-35.6%
-21.9%
-62.9%
-9.3%
-42.4%
86.1%
15.4%
514.0%
62.4%
-35.0%
-51.2%
-33.1%
-23.1%
-57.8%
2.5%
-58.0%
NA
1847.9%
NA
NA
-74.9%
NA
56.6%
11.4%
-50.8%
-13.9%
-55.2%
-3.1%
283.0%
-23.1%
NA
190.9%
12.6%
2.9%
-69.7%
25.1%
89.4%
-24.5%
-12.6%
114.4%
NA
NA
-55.3%
23.3%
NA
NA
NA
2770.6%
-30.6%
1277.4%
-66.4%
66.6%
0.0%
-9.3%
95.7%
62.6%
-2.1%
1.8%
-98.5%
1.3%
23.7%
-52.2%
-30.3%
2.2%
31.1%
-33.3%
-8.8%
-14.1%
-1.4%
1229.1%
-11.4%
NA
-80.5%
-46.2%
NA
-22.2%
4301.2%
199.7%
-65.5%
-51.6%
-20.7%
-22.9%
-60.5%
7.3%
-36.4%
NA
-48.0%
NA
NA
-73.7%
1175.7%
62.0%
28.5%
-38.0%
NA
-2.5%
-5.7%
-74.1%
NA
NA
NA
NA
-2.3%
29.4%
NA
164.0%
48.4%
7.9%
2.1%
39,600
-
147,088
61,661
42,601
-
7,905
9,154
54,269
6,725
165,027
50,766
52,446
59,771
48,576
19,079
65,016
19,499
719,935
57,960
61,653
80,199
89,815
45,925
75,799
17,813
71,425
29,521
25,633
33,905
36,625
38,470
110,917
64,415
3,717
24,133
1,598
11,195
63,289
37,809
37,355
27,391
57,692
24,835
29,853
-
13,943
-
-
95,813
320
36,586
11,832
33,648
6,265
24,870
9,446
16,784
5,717
-
1,042
2,678
10,391
70,447
3,936
5,447
16,013
10,972
8,567
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
437
NA
368
418
436
NA
489
482
427
497
359
430
429
420
431
462
415
461
259
421
419
406
397
433
407
464
411
450
456
446
443
439
385
416
512
460
529
476
417
440
442
454
423
459
449
NA
470
NA
NA
393
547
444
472
447
498
458
480
465
501
NA
536
518
479
413
510
503
466
477
485
Megawatt Daily

<---------------------------------------Q1 2015---------------------------------------->
<------------------------ Year 2014------------------------>

% CHG
% CHG

MKT FROM FROM
MKT
YR
No
Company
Q1 2015MWH
SHARE
Q4 2014 Q1 2014
2014MWH
SHARE
RK
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
Sunwave USA Holdings

Porcupine Mountain Power Group
Liberty Utilities (CalPeco Electric)
Energy Cooperative of New York
Tropicana Products
Nalcor Energy Marketing
Griffiss Utility Services
Main Line Generation
Brooklyn Navy Yard Cogeneration Partners
Independence Energy Group
Rayonier Performance Fibers
Mint Energy
United Illuminating
Colton Power
Larkin-Summit Wind
ArcLight Energy Marketing (1)
Aera Energy
General Compression
Fairchild Energy
Global Energy
Alpha Gas and Electric
Switch Energy
Perigee Energy
Hiko Energy
Speco Wind Power
Frontier Utilities Northeast
Marathon Power
Florida Biomass Energy
SJ Energy Partners
Hampshire Council of Governments
Carson Illinois Holdings
Accent Energy (1)
U S Energy Partners
East Coast Clean Energy of Virginia
Amerigreen Energy
Censtar Energy
C N Brown Electricity
FC Energy Services
PGPV
Agera Energy
RPA Energy
Singer Energy Group
Lykins Energy Solutions
Liberty Utilities (Granite State Electric)
Norgaard Community Turbines
East Coast Power and Gas
Community Energy
The Trustees of The University of Pennsylvania
3C Solar
Atco Power Canada
Elektrisola
Columbia Utilities Power
BluCo Energy
Helvetia Solar
ResCom Energy
Fred Meyer Stores
Galaxy Energy
Planet Energy
Kuehne Chemical
Lumens Energy Supply
International Paper
Consolidated Power
Fortistar Methane Group
L&L Energy
ABN Energy
PNE Energy Supply
Eagle Power Authority
Atlantic Power and Gas
Pacific Gas and Electric (5)
2,416
2,297
2,274
2,265
2,262
2,096
2,046
2,043
1,978
1,800
1,762
1,707
1,597
1,539
1,507
1,314
1,174
1,147
1,116
1,078
987
937
846
823
819
798
798
767
672
666
611
586
584
525
461
440
424
361
361
358
328
293
282
272
259
253
241
228
225
190
164
151
144
113
99
92
54
51
51
43
42
40
36
30
29
25
19
9
5
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
28
-11.5%
-73.1%
81.1%
-48.2%
-5.8%
NA
-7.6%
-93.9%
-12.4%
1139.1%
-27.0%
8806.5%
7522.9%
116.8%
2.9%
-77.0%
190.1%
-7.6%
1814.8%
-28.2%
NA
151.4%
80.3%
-8.1%
-6.5%
-57.8%
-46.0%
NA
-20.2%
NA
-92.9%
8.6%
-71.7%
-77.4%
-80.9%
-50.0%
357.7%
-77.3%
92.6%
NA
-30.4%
-82.9%
202.8%
4.9%
-15.5%
-21.2%
NA
-28.1%
20.0%
NA
343.5%
-23.2%
-45.2%
33.1%
-79.1%
5.7%
-87.7%
189.1%
-62.0%
-65.8%
-59.2%
NA
629.1%
-33.3%
-85.8%
NA
NA
NA
NA
2988.4%
NA
28.7%
6.5%
165.8%
NA
56.6%
502.7%
-4.8%
141.8%
-38.4%
21205.3%
61801.9%
108.5%
-2.3%
-14.9%
105.5%
-36.5%
NA
1840.6%
NA
-87.4%
-33.6%
-70.9%
-27.0%
NA
-77.1%
-77.7%
-46.5%
NA
-92.6%
-40.5%
216.8%
NA
-33.6%
-86.8%
-21.7%
-61.3%
96.0%
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.2%
NA
NA
NA
-79.5%
27.9%
NA
NA
-85.7%
-84.1%
15.2%
-99.1%
25.0%
-67.2%
-63.8%
-89.2%
NA
-91.6%
NA
629.1%
NA
-27.2%
NA
NA
NA
NA
11,300
10,949
4,769
14,376
11,429
-
8,296
147,752
7,998
1,250
11,997
65
572
1,730
5,469
25,934
1,623
5,763
65
3,369
-
9,266
2,405
11,526
3,906
1,894
8,179
7,539
4,813
-
35,961
4,013
6,999
4,337
7,533
5,910
1,300
3,294
1,304
-
471
3,244
93
1,152
526
642
-
7,680
1,184
-
37
1,878
2,080
631
14,991
601
1,239
211
1,601
308
1,645
-
20
197
521
-
-
-
65,191,537
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1.35%
475
478
507
469
474
NA
486
366
488
532
471
557
542
525
502
455
527
500
556
514
NA
481
519
473
511
523
487
493
506
NA
445
509
496
508
494
499
531
515
530
NA
545
516
554
535
543
539
NA
491
534
NA
559
524
520
540
468
541
533
551
528
548
526
NA
560
552
544
NA
NA
NA
23
Megawatt Daily

<---------------------------------------Q1 2015---------------------------------------->
<------------------------ Year 2014------------------------>

% CHG
% CHG

MKT FROM FROM
MKT
YR
No
Company
Q1 2015MWH
SHARE
Q4 2014 Q1 2014
2014MWH
SHARE
RK

(1) Sellers with this footnote exclude sales in ERCOT.
(2) Sellers with this footnote sales in ERCOT are from generation only (ie. excludes bilateral sales, if any).
(3) Includes AEP Generation Resources which was spun off from regulated utility Ohio Power on Jan 1 2014.
(4) Consists of 8 wind facilities 49% owned by NRG and 51% owned by various individuals.
(5) Excludes sales to California Independent System Operator in Q1 2015. These sales are reported on quarter late and an estimate is included in total projected sales.
(6) Excludes CE Generations portfolio of geothermal and gas-fired plants presented above under CE Generation.
(7) Represents J-Powers ownership in various units.
(8) Represents EDFDS 49.99% ownership in 3 nuclear facilities jointly-owned with Exelon.
(9) PSEG Power consists of PSEG Energy Resources & Trade plus PSEG Fossil and PSEG Nuclear. Most of the power generated by PSEG Fossil and Nuclear is sold to PSEG Energy Resources & Trade.
(10) Excludes 2 facilities located in California and Texas currently selling power under old PURPA contracts and which are exempt from reporting transactions to FERC until these agreements expire.
(11) Excludes GEs 24.95% ownership in Southeast PowerGen.
(12) Excludes one or more smaller generation facilities that are not required to report data to FERC.
(13) Tenaska Affiliates includes various direct and indirect affiliates of Tenaska Energy and Tenaska Power Fund.
(14) Various entities 69.55% ownership in Astoria I and 70% ownership in Astoria II. The remaining ownership in Astoria I and Astoria II is owned by and reported under GDF Suez.
(15) Represents unknown institutional tax equity investors share of jointly-owned wind facilities with Pattern Energy located in Texas.
(16) Excludes Tyrs ownership in various Tenaska plants (reported under TCT Generation in which Tyr owns 50% and Chubu Electric Power owns 50%).
(17) Represents 50% ownership (John Hancock 35%/Prudential 15%) in Tyr led consortium that owns Plains End and Rathdrum plants. Other 50% reported under Tyr Energy.
(18) Excludes ownership interests in two biomass facilities located in Florida and New Hampshire.
* Total projected includes estimated figures for entities that either have not filed at FERC or have filed incomplete data.
RCOT Sellers: If your company is interested in providing ERCOT data to be included in various statistics published by Platts each quarter including the above, please contact Chuck Herman Jr for
E
details at 610-518-2181.

Source of Data: Various government filings and Platts
29
38th Annual
COAL MARKETING DAYS CONFERENCE
Exploring the Effects of Regulatory Roadblocks and Global Market Competition

September 1718, 2015 Wyndham Grand Pittsburgh Downtown Hotel Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
REGISTER BY AUGUST 7, 2015 AND SAVE $200

Join coal industry executives at this years Platts Coal
Marketing Days Conference. Network with a variety of coal
producers, consumers, traders and transporters, while exchanging
best business practices and discussing cutting-edge trends with
the coal marketing community.
Industry Experts Discuss:

Met Coal Global/Domestic Supply & Demand Trends
Jack Porco, Xcoal Energy & Resources
George Dethlefsen, Corsa Coal Corporation
Lucas Pipes, Brean Capital
Timna Tanners, Bank of America Merrill Lynch
Hector Forster, Platts
Thermal Coal Production and Power Generation Outlook
R. Todd Adkins, Patriot Coal Sales
Chuck West, AEP
Hans Daniels, Doyle Trading Consultants
John Pippy, Pennsylvania Coal Alliance
Natural Gas Pricing Trends How Low Can They Go
Jeff Moore, Bentek Energy
Coal Transportation Infrastructure and
Shipping Challenges
FOR MORE INFORMATION

OR TO REGISTER:
Visit us online at www.coalmarketing
days.com or call us at 800-752-8878
(tollfree in the US) or +1 212-904-3070
(outside the US & Canada).
For more information and speaking
opportunities:
Erica Giardina
tel: 857-383-5718
erica.giardina@platts.com
For sponsorship and exhibit
opportunities:
Lorne Grout
tel: 857-383-5702
lorne.grout@platts.com
For media partnerships and
press inquiries:
Khushi Bhatia
tel: 857-383-5725
khushi.bhatia@platts.com
VISIT COALMARKETINGDAYS.COM
David Carlile, Lighthouse Resources Inc.

Mike Toohey, Waterways Council Inc.
Jamie Heller, Hellerworx, Inc.
Andrew Moore, Platts
Plus much more!
Registration Code: PC526NLI

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

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

[ELECTRIC POWER ]

Thursday, June 18, 2015

Exelon, NRG top wholesale power trading ranks

(continued on page 19)

100% renewables study draws jokes, respect

(continued on page 17)

FERC denies Artificial Island complaint

(continued on page 19)

Price trends at key trading points ($/MWh)

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

Day-ahead bilateral indexes and spark spreads for Jun 18

37.73 14456 19.46 16.85 11.63 6.41 -1.42

41.79 14510 21.63 18.75 12.99 7.23 -1.41

Inside this Issue

Thursday, June 18, 2015

ISONE & NYISO gas and coal generation (GWh)

Mass Hub drops with load, spot gas

Northeast dailies were down Wednesday with weakening

Northeast spot natural gas prices ($/MMBtu)

Transco zone 6 N.Y.

Northeast load and generation mix forecast (GWh)

485 452 439 389 430

Copyright 2015 McGraw Hill Financial

Thursday, June 18, 2015

ISONE day-ahead LMP for Jun 18 ($/MWh)

Northeast Platts M2MS Forward Curve, Jun 17 ($/MWh)

Prompt month: Jul 15

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

NYISO day-ahead LMP for Jun 18 ($/MWh)

*Ontario prices are in Canadian dollars

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

Generation unit outage report

Cap Fuel State Status Return

Copyright 2015 McGraw Hill Financial

Thursday, June 18, 2015

Southeast & Central day-ahead bilateral indexes for Jun 18 ($/MWh)

ERCOT dailies jump with gas prices

0.50 18.21 6803

Southeast load and generation mix forecast (GWh)

1108 1077 1066 1053 1065

677 670 661 658 683

397 401 409 420 431

Daily generation outage references

ERCOT & SPP gas and coal generation (GWh)

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

Houston Ship Channel

Copyright 2015 McGraw Hill Financial

Thursday, June 18, 2015

ERCOT average day-ahead LMP for Jun 18 ($/MWh)

Southeast & Central Platts M2MS Forward Curve, Jun 17 ($/MWh)

Prompt month: Jul 15

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

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

MISO South average day-ahead LMP for Jun 18 ($/MWh)

33.58 2.28 -1.36 2.30

21.96 1.98 -0.67 -0.35 20.54 7779

SPP average day-ahead LMP for Jun 18 ($/MWh)

Generation unit outage report

16.30 -0.60 -1.23 -0.13 13.87 5869

Southeast near-term bilateral markets ($/MWh)

Cap Fuel State Status Return

Southeast & Central

Copyright 2015 McGraw Hill Financial