Dr. Alexander Wolski, Director, Strategic Projects

WorleyParsons Nuclear

Financing of New Nuclear CapacitiesInternational Nuclear ConferenceBulgarian Nuclear Energy – National, Regional and World Energy Security

Varna, 03 June 2015

With over 35,100 people in157 offices throughout 46 countries, we provide our customers with a unique combination of extensive global

resources, world-recognized technical expertise and deep local knowledge.

Global reach

We operate in…

WorleyParsons Nuclear Hubs

EU Hub (Sofia) · 100+ employees · Approximately 550 nuclear

capable employees and staff augmentation support in the Region

· Site selection and site hazards· Feasibility Studies, Licensing

and preconstruction services· New build/Refurbishment

Owner’s Engineer, design support

· Safety Assessment and Verification Analyses including stress tests

· Major nuclear PM experience accumulated last 10 years

· Main centre for IAEA and EU regulations application experience

Canada Hub (Toronto) · 200 employees· Approximately 250 nuclear

capable employees and staff augmentation in the Region

· employees and staff augmentation support

· Engineering and Design Support to Canadian nuclear program and main Canadian utilities

USA Hub (Reading) · 100+ employees · Approximately 600 nuclear

capable employees and staff augmentation in the Region

· Proven excellence in nuclear PM role and design

· Vast US NRC regulations application experience

· New plant services (deployment, planning, COLA and ESP)

· Existing plant services· Decommissioning· Post-Fukushima evaluations

and modernizations

Pre-construction phase – Armenia, Bulgaria, China, Czech, Egypt, Jordan, Poland, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Turkey, USA

Construction – USA, Japan, Korea, Slovenia

Operation: Power-uprates, plant upgrades and modernization –

Bulgaria, Canada, Mexico, Slovenia, Sweden, Russia and FSU (Lithuania, Ukraine, Armenia), USA

Post-Fukushima Experience – Bulgaria, Russia, Turkey, USA

License renewal – Canada, USA SF and RAW management - Canada, UK, USA

Decommissioning – Armenia, Canada, UK, USA

Nuclear What We Do

55+Years of Industry Experience

18 Nuclear UnitsEngineer of Record

30,000+MW Nuclear Projects

Customers services through all phases of a nuclear power plant lifecycle

Investment Cost Typically 60 – 80% of the generation cost Can be influenced by various parameters

Operational & Maintenance Cost Typically 15 – 25% of the generation cost Cost are more or less fixed Optimization potential is small once a technology is defined

Fuel Cost Typically 10 – 15% of the generation cost Spent Fuel Cost defined by SF Management Strategy Cost are more or less fixed, optimization potential is small

Decommissioning Cost Typically 1 – 2% of the generation cost; Defined by structure of decommissioning fund / legal requirements

Electricity Cost from NPPs

Investment cost60-80%

Operational & Maintenance Cost15-25%

Fuel Cost10-15%

Decommissioning Cost 1-2%

Overnight Construction Cost Assume plant to be built on one day, no time dependent costs

EPC Cost Directly related to plant engineering, construction, procurement, installation,

testing and commissioning Depend on contracting scheme, technology provider(s)and site characteristics Typically 70 – 80% of the Overnight Construction Cost

Owner’s Cost Licensing , project management, supervision and infrastructure cost, selection

and training of operating personnel, Owner’s Engineer Services if applicable Owner’s cost depend on the current status of the existing infrastructure,

including availability of qualified owner’s resources Typically 20 – 30% of the Overnight Construction Cost

Investment Cost for a new NPP

Escalation Cost Depend on macro-economic situation (host country and country of origin) and

development during the construction project; Sensitive to project delays; Typically 10 – 20% of Overnight Construction Cost

Financing Cost (Interest during Construction) Interests and fees paid during plant construction; Sensitive to project delays; Normally capitalized at the begin of operation; Typically 20 – 30% of the Overnight Construction Cost

Simplified Total Investment Cost Recent publicly available data for plant EPC cost (overnight):

- UAE (4 x 1400 MW): 20 bnUSD (3571 USD/kW)- Akkuyu (4 x 1200 MW): 22 bnUSD (4583 USD/kW)- Jordan (2 x 1200 MW): 10 bnUSD (4167 USD/kW)- Hinkley Point C (2 x 1600 MW): 14 bnGBP (5814 USD/kW)

Investment Cost for a new NPP

Simplified Overall Investment Cost

% Investment Cost in mUSD

Overnight Cost (ONC) 60-80 7,143 6,250

EPC Cost 70-80 5,000 5,000

Owner’s Cost 20-30 2,143 1,250

Escalation Cost 10-20 714 1,428 625 1,250

Financing Cost (IDC) 20-30 1,428 2,143 1,250 1,875

Investment Cost 9,285(186% of EPC)

10,714(214% of EPC)

8,125(163% of EPC)

9,375(188%of EPC)

Sovereign (state) Based Structure Highest long-term state benefit Simplest contractual arrangement structure Not compatible with efforts for free market models and liberalization

Corporate Based Structure Corporation through balance sheet, equity, assets to fund investment 100% state-owned or 100% private owned, or any combination State control and benefit corresponding to its share in the corporation Compatibility with free market models and liberalization depending on state share

Project Based Structure Project funding (equity and debt, secured by future incomes) 100% state-owned or 100% private owned, or any combination Compatibility with free market models and liberalization depending on state share

Project Ownership & Financing

General Considerations for Nuclear Construction Projects High Technology driven (compared with other generation technologies) Substantially longer periods of project implementation / construction (construction risk) Mandatory specific safety measures to be employed (licensing risk) Limited number of technology suppliers and vendors Higher funding risk due to 100 years economic cycle Strict compliance with environmental requirements and NGO constraints (Perceived ?) Track-record of cost- and schedule overruns

Risks inherent in Nuclear Projects

Project Financing

Construction schedule risk Construction cost risk Technology risk / Licensing risk Interest rate risk Supply chain risk Regulatory risk

Policy risk Dispatch risk (dereg. Market) Revenue risk (dereg. Market) Public opinion risk Etc.

Historic construction records An Analysis pf NPP Construction Costs (DOE/EIA-0485) for 75 plants starting construction 1966-1977

Average cost increase to original estimate >200% (75% of overrun not time-related) Average construction delay > 90% (60 months to 116 in average) No significant effect of learning and/or experience

A comparable analysis by the French government came to similar conclusions

On-going construction examples are not building confidence Olkiluoto 3, Flamanville 3, Taishan 1 & 2, Hongyanhe, Kudankulam, Sanmen 1 & 2, Shin Kori 3, Vogtle 3 & 4,

Leningrad II 1&2, etc. Angra 3, Watss Bar 2

Still, the nuclear industry has failed to show it can meet schedules or budgets during construction.

Moody’s Investors Service:» New construction of nuclear power plants is generally credit negative «

» Cost overruns more frequent vs other technology types «

Construction Risk

Traditional Model Based on regulated and/or government utilities operate in an electricity market based

on vertically integrated monopoly(s) subject to state regulation Investments based on long-term national assessment Model implicitly ensures long-term revenue Target: Minimize long-term cost of the electricity system 100 years successful experience, all operating NPPs built under this model Most current NPP construction projects (CHN, IND, KOR, ARE, RUS, etc.)

New Model Divested/privatized generators compete on a short-term electricity market Dispatch based on spot-prices during defined trading periods Long-term revenues are uncertain Investments based on market incentives Target: Minimize short-term marginal cost Few nuclear projects in deregulated markets with major out-of-market incentives

Past and Present Electricity Market

Governments to foster general policies through “out-of-market” mechanisms Subsidies for specific types of generation (mostly renewables) Various tax schemes (carbon-tax, nuclear fuel and spent-fuel tax, etc.) Power Purchase Agreements Capacity market mechanisms

Due to the “Partial” implementation of a free electricity market, the market completely fails to provide supportive conditions for large-scale energy infrastructure projects.

Governments must provide means to increase the attractiveness of large projects, by creation of an appropriate investment climate Guarantee predictability of investment recovery (take on the “market risk”) Facilitate financing options through for example sovereign guarantees Provide preferential infrastructure development loans Etc.

Present Electricity Market

4 x 1600 MW EPR to be built be EdF EnergyOwnership : “PROJECT”, 100% private (from UK perspective)Shareholders : EdF (~50%); CNNC/CGN (~30-40%); AREVA (~10%); others UK government supportModified PPA agreement “Contract for difference”

• Strike price fully indexed with CPI• Strike (Guarantee) price of £ 92,50 /

128,6 € (2012) per MW for 35 years(2020: 175 € ; 2030: 256 € ; 2040: 375 € @ 3.9% CPI)

• UK infrastructure development loan guarantee for 65% of the project

Equity and Debt : structure unknown

Hinkley Point C – Somerset

Location: UK

Current Examples

4 x 1200 MW AES-2006 to be built be Rosatom project company

Project Implementation based on Inter-Governmental Agreement (2010)

First Build-Own-Operate contract in Nuclear Generation

Project Company

Ownership : “PROJECT”, 100% private (from Turkey’s perspective);

Shareholders : RAOS (74.9%); REA (21.9%); ASE (2.7%); Inter RAO (0.8%); Atomenergoremont (0.05%); Atomtekhenergo (0.05%)

Turkish Government support:• PPA agreement to be signed for 123.5 USD per

MW with annual adjustment possibility never to exceed 153.3 USD

• PPA valid for 70% of the output of units 1&2 and 30% of the output of units 3&4

• Transfer of Site to PC

Equity and Debt : 100% financing provided by Russian PC shareholders

Akkuyu NPP – Mersin

Location: Turkey

Current Examples

2 x 700 MW Candu-6 to be built be EnergoNuclear (completion project)

Project Company : JV between SNN and “investor”

Ownership : “PRIVATE”, (Romania’s perspective);

Shareholders : SNN (30 – 49%); “investor” (51% - 70%)

Romanian Government support:• New Energy Legislation (preferred grid access)• PPA agreement (using CfD mechanism)• Sovereign Guarantees• Preferential tax environment • Take on waste management and decommissioning• Potential Participation as equity investor

Equity and Debt : ? project financing ?

Cernavoda NPP

Location: Romania

Current Examples

1600 MW EPR to be built be AREVA/Siemens consortium

Financing not disclosed in detail, but key elements through EC complaint;

TVO is a Finnish “Mankala” company; shareholder take off electricity in acc. To their share and pay cost in acc. To their share;

Ownership: Hybrid “CORPORATE”,/”PROJECT”;

Shareholders: none

Government support:• Finland: Upholding of Mankala principle• Finland: indirect shareholder through Fortum Power

Oy (51% state)• Germany: indirect through favored loans from

Bavarian state bank• France: 610 mEUR ECA• Sweden: 100mEUR ECA

Equity and Debt : 25:75

Olkiluoto 3

Location: Finland

Current Examples

Ultimately governments are today still the main investor in most NPP projects. Nationally through (majority) state owned utilities (Rosatom, CGN, CNNC, KHNP,

ENEC, etc.); In international projects a co-operation between national champions seems to evolve

(EdF & CGN in China, SNN & CGN in Romania, EdF & CGN & CNNC in UK, Rosatom & CNNC & GoJ in Jordan, etc.)

The benefits of Nuclear electricity generation are well understood and generally accepted

Governments support is essential for Nuclear projects; this applies to host governments and supplier governments.

Governmental support includes the firm commitment to the project, but at the same time substantial monetary commitments for extended periods of time.

Conclusion