Alliant Energy Corporation -...

EEI Financial Conference – November 9-12, 2008 1

Alliant Energy Corporation

EEI Financial ConferenceNovember 9-12, 2008


Safe Harbor

This presentation contains statements that may be considered forward looking statements, such as management’s expectations of financial

objectives and projections, capital expenditures, new generation plans, customer rate projections, regulatory action and compliance, and plans

and strategies. These statements speak of the Company’s plans, goals, beliefs, or expectations, refer to estimates or use similar terms. Actual results could differ materially, because the realization of those results is subject to many uncertainties including regulatory approvals and results, unanticipated construction costs or delays, economic conditions in our service territories, and other factors, some of which are discussed in

more detail in the Company’s Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 and its Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30,

2008. All forward looking statements included in this presentation are based upon information presently available, and the Company assumes

no obligation to update any forward looking statements.


Today’s Discussion

• Corporate Profile• Regulated Utility Overview• Liquidity & Credit Metrics• Regulatory Calendar• WindConnect® Profile• Investment Considerations


Corporate Profile

2008 EPS Based on Midpoint of Guidance Estimates Provided October 31, 2008 in Earnings Release

Alliant Energy Continuing Operations: $2.69

Regulated Utilities

16% Investment

In ATC

$0.19

RMT andWindConnect

$0.16

• Transportation• Non-regulatedgeneration• Other

$0.14

Parent

$0.09

Utility Non-regulated

$2.11


Chicago

Minneapolis

Regulated Utility Profile

Service Territory Advantages• Favorable commission rankings by independent groups• Advanced ratemaking for new generation• Economic diversity and stability• Renewable portfolio standards and superior wind and

biomass resources to achieve those standards

2,8163,085Peak Demand (MW)

47,55866,192Gas Sales (000’s Dths)

175,887233,903Gas Customers

14,98517,946Electric Sales (GWh)

453,051527,799Electric Customers

WPLIPL2007 data

IOWA

WISCONSIN


Regulated Utility Profile (cont.)

• Advanced rate making principles– Iowa: House File 577

• Must be applied to base-load additions over 300 MW and all natural gas and renewable generation

• Emery Generating Station – 565 MW natural gas (2004 –12.23% ROE)

• Whispering Willow Wind Farm – 200 MW wind (2009 – 11.7% ROE)

• Sutherland Generating Station #4 – have requested 12.55% ROE for 350 MW base-load unit

– Wisconsin: Act 7• Optional for any electric generating facility• Nelson Dewey Generating Station #3 – have requested 12.5%

ROE for 300 MW base-load unit


Balanced Generation Plan

• 68 MW Cedar Ridge Wind Farm (WPL / 2008)• 200 MW Whispering Willow Wind Farm - East (IPL / 2010)• 200 MW Bent Tree Wind Farm (WPL / 2010)• 200 MW WPL Wind Farm (WPL / 2013)

• 300 MW Neenah Energy Facility• WPL / 2009 (Purchase from non-regulated affiliate)

• 600 MW Riverside Energy Center• WPL / 2013 (Currently PPA with Calpine)

• 350 MW Sutherland Generating Station #4• 2013 In Service / 10% Biomass / Super Critical

• 300 MW Nelson Dewey Generating Station #3•2013 In-Service / 20% Biomass / CFB


Biomass Commitment

• Challenges: Creating markets, inventory

• Opportunities: Economic development, strong local markets

Proposed Fuel MixSGS 4NED 3

100%100%Total

1%2%Native grasses

9%3%Corn stalks

0%15%Wood chips

90%80%Coal blend


Generation Plan Approvals

Transfer of Neenah from non-regulated to WPL (June 2009)Natural Gas:

Q1 2009WPL 200 MW Bent Tree Wind Farm (Wisconsin)IPL 200 MW Whispering Willow Wind Farm

Wind:

February 2009Nelson Dewey #3 Air PermitNovember 2008Nelson Dewey #3 Ratemaking PrinciplesNovember 2008Nelson Dewey #3 Siting Application (CPCN)

January 2009Sutherland #4 Air PermitJanuary 2009Sutherland #4 Ratemaking Principles (RPU)

Sutherland #4 Siting Application (GCU)Baseload:


Other Capital Initiatives

• Environmental– Major projects planned through 2013

• Advanced Metering Infrastructure– Implementation underway on $85 million program in Wisconsin– Evaluating options for IPL

3

1

2

ApprovalProcess

30Scrubbers (SO2)

11SCR (NOX)

00Baghouses (Mercury)

PlanningUnder

Construction


$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

mill

ions

Maint Capex Baseload Environmental Wind

Utility Capital Expenditure Profile

$516

$1,020

$1,715

$2,085

$368

• Various projects subject to regulatory and Alliant Board of Director’s approval. Excludes AFUDC, if applicable


Liquidity & Credit Ratings

$335-$235$100$100AEC / Other

$150

-

$150A/R Sales TotalCashAvailableLimitas of 10/30/2008

$650

$250

$300

Credit Facility

$650

$250

$300

$1,230$430Total

$370$120WPL

$525$75IPL

LIQUIDITY millions

A-2P-1WPL – Commercial Paper

A-2P-2IPL – Commercial Paper

A-A2WPL – Unsecured long-term debt

BBB+A3IPL – Unsecured long-term debt

S&PMoody’sCREDIT RATINGS


Other Regulatory Items

WPL

IPL

2009• Edgewater 5 SCR decision1st Half 2009• Nelson Dewey Units 1 & 2 Scrubber decision

Q4 2008• 2009/2010 General Rate Case decisionExpected Date

March 2009• Iowa 2008 test year electric rate caseexpected filing

Q1 2009• 5 Year Energy Efficiency Plan decisionApproved 10/29/08• Emissions Plan & Budget decision

Expected Date


RMT WindConnect® Profile

• Leading provider of wind energy facility development, engineering and construction

• Over 3,100 MW constructed in 20 states• Competitive advantage is full value chain expertise:

– In-house permitting, engineering and construction management– Self performance of crucial construction work– Proven track record, repeat customers and unparalleled safety performance

$0.03

$0.08

$0.16

2006 2007 2008

RMT and WindConnect® Earnings Per ShareCompleted & Current Projects


Investment Considerations

• Attractive service territory– Well regarded regulators– Advanced rate making for new generation– Wind and biomass in our backyard

• Balanced rate base growth strategy• Strong balance sheet, liquidity and access

to capital markets• Target dividend payout of 60-70% of utility

earnings


Appendix

38-47• Current Operations32-37• Regulatory17-31• New Generation PlansSlides


New Generation Plans


Fixed Financial Parameters

100% AFUDCCWIP/AFUDC25Depreciationn/aEquity %

11.70%Decision expected Q4

2008

Decision expected Q4

2008

ROEApproval

100% AFUDC100% AFUDC100% CWIPCWIP/AFUDC25n/a40Depreciationn/an/a50%Equity %

12.30%12.55%12.50% ROERequest

IPL Whispering Willow (wind)

IPL SGS 4 (baseload)

WPL NED 3 (baseload)


Generation Mix

54%

6%0% 0% 1%

15%24%

62%

9% 7% 1% 1%14%

6%

0%

25%

50%

75%

Coal Gas Wind Biomass Other Purchased -Nuclear

Purchased -Other

20072014 (Projected)

Energy Mix

45%

29%

0% 0% 2%9%

15%

47%40%

1% 1% 2%8%

1%0%

25%

50%

75%

Coal Gas Wind Biomass Other Purchased -Nuclear

Purchased -Other

20072014 (Projected)

Capacity Mix

Plan Reduces Purchased Power Exposure


Sales – Historical & Long-Term Forecast

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Sale

s - 0

00s

MW

h

IPL WPL

1.7%1.6%Forecasted (2008-2014)

1.8%1.3%Historical (2003-2007)

WPLIPLCAGR

* Excludes bulk power sales

* Forecast levels are consistent with most recent Integrated Resource Plan filings with the various state commissions


0500

1,0001,5002,0002,5003,0003,5004,0004,500

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

meg

awat

ts

Owned Capacity PPA Capacity Wind Net Capacity Coal - SGS4 Capacity Need

IPL Load and Capacity


0500

1,0001,5002,0002,5003,0003,5004,0004,500

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

meg

awat

ts

Owned Capacity PPA Capacity Neenah RiversideWind Net Capacity Coal - NED3 Capacity Need

WPL Load and Capacity


$1,200 - $1,300$1,200 - $1,300Cost (millions)

20132013In Service

Project Overviews

Q4 2008 (CPCN)Approved April 2008Applications

Q4 2008 (Act 7)Q4 2008 (RPU-08-1)Financial Parameters

Q1 2009Q4 2008Air Permit

Anticipated Decisions

Washington Group Int’lKiewit / Black & Veatch EPC Contractor

20%10%Biomass Capable

Circulating Fluidized Bed (CFB)Super CriticalTechnology

300 MW (100% Share)350 MW (54% Share)Capacity

Nelson Dewey Unit #3 (WPL)Sutherland Unit #4 (IPL)

Baseload Investments


Wind Generation Investments

200 MW

$425 - $475

Vestas V-82

2010

Regulatory

200 MW

WPL

TBD300 MW---Extra Capacity @ Site

TBD$400 - $450$155Cost Estimate (millions)

TBD* 100 MW remain from

Vestas Contract

Vestas V-82Vestas V-82Turbines Procured

By 20132010Q4 2008In Service

PlanningUnder ConstructionUnder Construction

Status

200 MW200 MW68 MWSize

WPLIPLWPLSubsidiary

TBDWIND FARM


Wind Resources

Alliant Energy service territory


Biomass Resources


Bio-Fuels Investment

SGS4NED3

100%100%Total

1%2%Native grasses

9%3%Corn stover

0%15%Wood chips

90%80%Coal blend

Fuel Mix - Proposed

11515100Native grasses bale

801565Corn stover bale

14811135Native grasses pellet

11111100Corn stover pellet

$ 56$ 21$ 35Wood chips

TotalDeliverFuelFuel prices

14.00Natural gas

10.393Native grasses pellet (bio-fuel)

7.893Corn stover pellet (bio-fuel)

6.123Wood chips (bio-fuel)

2.389Black thunder (coal)

$ 1.429Pet coke (coal)

$/mmbtuProjected Fuel Prices

Bio-Fuel Compared to Other Fuel Sources


Bio-Fuels Advantages

• Grasses– Improves wildlife habitat– Reduces water pollution by up to 75%– Reduces flooding– Restores most threatened ecosystem, tall grass prairie– Increases carbon sequestration potential

• Wood– 90-95% less CO2 than coal – Trees can fix up to 6 tons of CO2/acre/year– Low sulfur, NOx, and mercury emissions– Targeting underutilized, low quality material (target TSI and FCL)

• Stover– DOE report called corn stover “…the largest under utilized crop

in the U.S.”


Nelson Dewey Unit #3 Siting and Ratemaking Application

Q4 2008PSCW decision

Sep. 29-30, 2008Public hearings

Sep. 19, 2008Technical hearings

Sep. 15, 2008Surrebuttal testimony

Sep. 8, 2008Rebuttal testimony and remaining direct testimony

Aug.11, 2008Intervenors direct testimony and rebuttal testimony

June 13, 2008WPL direct testimony

On or beforeProcedural Schedule


Sutherland Unit #4 Ratemaking Principles Application

Oct. 12, 2008Intervenor supplemental direct testimony

Dec. 29, 2008Post-hearing briefs

Q1 2009IUB decision

Dec. 1, 2008Hearing/testimony and cross examination

Nov. 10, 2008IPL supplemental rebuttal testimony

Aug. 22, 2008Joint statement of the issues

Aug. 18, 2008Intervenors surrebuttal testimony

Aug. 4, 2008IPL rebuttal testimony

July 8, 2008Intervenors direct testimony

June 6, 2008Petitions to intervene

On or beforeProcedural Schedule


Renewable Portfolio Standards

MinnesotaIowaWisconsin

None500 MW by 2013800 MW by 2018

1,600 MW by 2028

10% by 201320% by 202025% by 2025

Proposed Revisions to Current Standards

Announced projects achieve 2025 standards

AchievedAnnounced projects achieve 2015

standards

Plan To Meet Current Standards

12% by 2012, gradual increases to 25% by 2025

50 MW~5% by 2010~9% by 2015

Current Standards


Regulatory


Act 7N/AHF 577Financial Parameters for New Generation

666Term (years)

10.54%Sep. 2006

Pass Through

Historical or partially forecasted test year

D: 2 R:3

Appointed

5

Minnesota

10.75%Dec. 2007

10.97%Dec. 2007

Latest Electric ROE in state

Fuel ClausePass ThroughFuel

Forecasted

Historical w/ post test year

adjustments for 9 month period

Rate Case Test Year

D:3 R:0D: 2 R: 1Party Affil.

AppointedAppointedElected / Appoint

33Commissioners

WisconsinIowa

State Commission Overview


RRA Ranking of State Commissions

Regulatory Research Associates (RRA) maintains three principal rating categories for regulatory climates: Above Average, Average, and Below Average. Within the principal rating categories, the numbers 1, 2, and 3 indicate

relative position. The designation 1 indicates a stronger rating; 2, a mid-range rating; and, 3, a weaker rating. The evaluations are assigned from an investor perspective and indicate the

relative regulatory risk associated with the ownership of securities issued by the

jurisdiction’s utilities. The evaluation reflects our assessment of the probable level and

quality of the earnings to be realized by the state’s utilities as a result of regulatory,

legislative, and court actions.

Wisconsin and Iowa are two of the top ranked commissions from an

investor perspective

Alabama Above Average / 2Florida Above Average / 2Indiana Above Average / 2Mississippi Above Average / 2North Carolina Above Average / 2Wisconsin Above Average / 2Iowa Above Average / 3Virginia Above Average / 3California Average / 1Delaware Average / 1Georgia Average / 1Massachusetts Average / 1South Carolina Average / 1Tennessee Average / 1Colorado Average / 2District of Columbia Average / 2Hawaii Average / 2Kansas Average / 2Kentucky Average / 2Louisiana Average / 2Maine Average / 2Michigan Average / 2Minnesota Average / 2


FERC Jurisdiction

• WPL wholesale customers

– ~20% of WPL’s MWh sales

– Formula rates effective June 1, 2007, subject to refund (10.9% ROE, 55% equity)

– Monthly fuel adjustment

• WPL investment in American Transmission Company

– 16.4% equity interest at Sep. 30, 2008

– 12.2% authorized ROE (annual true-up)

– ATC forecasted capex of $2.8 billion over 10 years

• IPL wholesale ~2% of IPL’s MWh sales

– Formula rates approved with monthly fuel adjustment


Authorized Capital StructuresBased on approved retail rate orders

MPUC (Minnesota)n/an/a1.5%41.6%7.7%49.1%Electric Servicen/an/a7.6%44.0%7.4%41.1%Gas Service

n/an/a8.4%33.7%3.8%54.1%Gas Servicen/an/a8.4%33.7%3.8%54.1%Electric Service

Regulatory1.0%10.4%6.8%27.6%3.1%51.0%Gas Service1.0%10.4%6.8%27.6%3.1%51.0%Electric Service

FinancialPSCW (Wisconsin)

n/an/an/a42.3%8.3%49.3%Gas Servicen/an/an/a44.8%7.3%47.9%

Emery Generating Station

n/an/an/a44.8%7.3%47.9%Electric ServiceIUB (Iowa)

AssociatesObligationsDebtDebtStockEquity

%Advances From

%Debt Equivalent

O.B.S.%Short-term%Long-term%Preferred%Common


Retail Rate Base BreakdownBased on approved rate orders

$7

$136

$197$1,051

$212

$354

$1,621

Millions

10.8%

10.4%

10.8%10.8%

10.4%

12.2%

10.7%

ROE%Authorized

Emery Generating Station

Gas Service

PSCW (Wisconsin)Retail Electric ServiceGas Service

Retail Electric Service

IUB (Iowa)

Retail Electric Service

MPUC (Minnesota)

Gas Service


Current Operations


IPL Sales (for the year-ended Dec. 31, 2007)

Electric Sales - MWh

Industrial, 43% Commercial

, 22%

Residential, 23%

Sales For Resale /

Other, 12%

Gas Sales - Dths

Industrial, 6%

Commercial, 17%

Residential, 25%Transport /

Other, 52%

527,799 customers

$1.3 billion revenue

233,903 customers



WPL Sales (for the year-ended Dec. 31, 2007)

Electric Sales - MWh

Industrial, 33%

Commercia, 15%

Residential, 24%

Sales For Resale /

Other, 28%

Gas Sales - Dths

Industrial, 2%

Commercial, 18%

Residential, 24%

Transport / Other, 56%

453,051 customers


175,887 customers



Gas Business Overview

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Sale

s - 0

00s

Dth

s

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

Mar

gins

- m

illio

ns

Sales - Retail Sales - Transport Margins


Coal Plants: Equivalent Availability Factor (EAF) and Fuel Cost Per MWh2003-2007 Five Year Average

1 Megawatts represent 100% of unit, not Alliant Energy share2 Source is GADS (Generating Availability Data System)3 Source is FERC Form 1

$11.3484.5%190BurlingtonIPL

$16.0988.4%200Kapp 2IPL

$18.4681.2%240Lansing 4IPL

$9.9278.7%675OttumwaIPL

$15.4091.1%408Edgewater 5WPL

$16.2486.3%348Edgewater 4WPL

$13.5284.4%535Columbia 2WPL

$13.6684.6%535Columbia 1WPL

Fuel $/MWh3EAF2MW1Plant


Reliability ComparisonSAIDI and SAIFI Calculations - Excluding Major Storms

System Average Interruption Duration Index (SAIDI)

Source: DMS (and OMS)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Min

utes

IPL 124.2 90 114.6 155.4 114.6 115.2 107.5 115.3 84.06 112.3

WPL 166.2 134.4 118.2 155.4 120 101.3 93.3 116.2 102.7 127

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

System Average Interruption Frequency Index (SAIFI)

Source: DMS (and OMS)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

IPL 1.36 1.2 1.5 1.7 1.45 1.35 1.04 1.27 1.02 1.1503

WPL 1.43 1.41 1.26 1.18 1.3 1.255 0.99 1.03 0.97 1.3161

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007


Electric Rate Comparison Typical Monthly Bill (1)

$31,512$1,577$91WPL average$31,354$1,479$89WE

$26,794$1,397$92WPS

$37,203$1,560$109MGEWisconsin:

$33,557$1,300$93IPL average$19,993$917$68Mid-American average

Iowa:Industrial(4)Commercial(3)Residential(2)

Source: EEI(1) Annualized rates in effect June 30, 2008(2) Based on 750 KWh/month(3) Based on 14,000 KWh/month and 40 KW demand(4) Based on 400,000 KWh/month and 1,000 KW demand


WisconsinComparison of Total Overall Retail Rates (Ending 12/31)

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

cent

s/kW

h

MG&E (WI) Wisc Elec (WI) WPS (WI) NSP (WI) WPL (WI)

Source: Edison Electric Institute

Iowa and Minnesota Comparison of Total Overall Retail Rates (Ending 12/31)

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

cent

s/kW

h

IPL (IA ) MID A M (IA ) IPL (MN) MPC (MN) NSPC (MN) OTTER (MN)

Source: Edison Electric Institute

Our goal is to maintain rate increases of an average of less than 6 percent annually during our build out years, including fuel costs. Plans to manage those increases are as follows:

Utilize program management to efficiently execute our new generation and environmental compliance plansFocus on cost reduction and operational efficiency in all aspects of the business by utilizing Lean Six Sigma (LSS)Deploy technology that improves operational efficiency and/or permanently reduces costs while enhancing customer experienceImplement energy efficiency and demand-side management programs that enable customers to better manage their individual costsHedge fuel costs according to plans approved by our regulators

Customer Rates - Overview


Midwest Region - Customer Satisfaction Scores 659

642

636

630

621

620

618

616

607

601

600

597

592

591

556

550

M idA merican Energy

We Energies

Xcel Energy-M idwest

A lliant Energy

Indianapo lis P o wer & Light

D etro it Ediso n

Westar Energy

D uke Energy

A EP Ohio

M ID WEST R EGION A L A VER A GE

C o nsumers Energy

Ohio Ediso n

T he Illuminat ing C o mpany

A merenUE

C o mEd

A meren Illino is Ut ilit ies

2008 JD Power Electric Business (Retail Customers) Study


2008 JD Power Electric Business (Industrial Customers) Study

Midwest Region - Customer Satisfaction Scores

728

719712711710

704703

692690689

686675

671

666641

612

728E.ON USM idA merican Energy

A quilaC o nsumers Energy

Xcel Energy-M idwestA lliant Energy

Kansas C ity P o wer & LightWe Energies

A EP -M idwestD uke Energy-M idwestF irstEnergy-M idwest

M ID WEST R EGION A VER A GED etro it Ediso nExelo n-C o mEd

N iSo urceWestar Energy

A meren

Date post:	24-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	hadiep
View:	215 times
Download:	2 times

Alliant Energy Corporation -...

Documents