Nuclear Energy 2014: Status and Outlook

Annual Briefing for the Financial Community

February 13, 2014

Today’s Briefing

• Plant performance

• Market issues

• Fukushima response

• Status of new plant construction

- Summer 2 and 3: Stephen Byrne, executive vice president, SCANA Corp.

- Vogtle 3 and 4: Stephen Kuczynski, president and CEO, Southern Nuclear Operating Co.

• 2014 and beyond

Plant Performance

0

20

40

60

80

100

1990 1996 2002 2008

Sustained Reliability and Productivity

U.S. Nuclear Plant Capacity Factor (Percent)

91.8% in 2007 91.1% in 2008 90.5% in 2009 91.2% in 2010 88.9% in 2011 86.4% in 2012 90.9% in 2013*

2013

Highlights

• 2013 average includes San Onofre 2 and 3, which did not operate, and Fort Calhoun, which had a 2% capacity factor for the year. The industry’s average capacity factor without those units was 92.1%.

• Number of refueling outages:

2013 = 51

2012 = 63

2011 = 65

Source: Energy Information Administration * NEI estimate

Snapshot of U.S. Nuclear Plant Costs ($ per MWh)

# of Sites

Fuel Capital Operating Total

Generating1

All U.S. 612 7.35 12.96 23.86 44.17

Single-Unit 26 7.52 13.17 29.85 50.54

Multi-Unit 35 7.22 12.81 19.40 39.44

Source: Electric Utility Cost Group (EUCG)

3-Year Average Total Generating Cost

2010-2012

2012 Total Generating Cost

1 Q 2 Q 3 Q 4 Q

$62.36

$40.94

$33.00 $28.22

1 Total generating cost = fuel + capital + operating 2 Excludes Crystal River 3, Fort Calhoun, San Onofre 2 and 3, and Kewaunee

Quartiles

10-Year Trend of U.S. Nuclear Plant Costs (2012 $ per MWh)

Year Fuel Capital Operating Total

2002 5.57 3.76 18.58 27.91

2003 5.47 5.02 20.27 30.75

2004 5.10 6.12 19.56 30.78

2005 4.89 6.56 20.27 31.73

2006 4.81 6.42 20.71 31.94

2007 4.98 6.34 20.31 31.62

2008 5.24 7.27 20.78 33.29

2009 5.89 10.58 22.46 38.92

2010 6.67 10.53 22.49 39.69

2011 7.01 11.50 23.34 41.85

2012 7.35 12.96 23.86 44.17

Source: Electric Utility Cost Group (EUCG)

243

1,111

715

134 79

276 352

69

726

56 83

385

629

2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Megawatts

Power Uprates Are Major Capex Drivers

Sources: Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Electric Utility Cost Group

Power Uprates Approved by NRC

2000-2012

Year Total Capex Uprate Capex Uprates as % of

Total Capex

Billions of Dollars (2012) 2010 7.34 1.12 15.3%

2011 7.89 1.95 24.7%

2012 8.52 2.45 28.8%

Power Uprates as Share of Capex

2008-2012 Nuclear Capital Spending (2012 Billions of $)

2.5

1.3 1.0

0.5

3.0

2.2

1.4

0.5

3.2

1.9 1.8

0.4

4.0

1.9 1.6

0.5

4.3

2.2

1.6

0.4

Uprates, ExtendedOperation

EquipmentReplacement

Regulatory Other

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Source: Electric Utility Cost Group

Uprates, License

Renewal51%

Equipment Replacement

26% Regulatory18%

Other5%

Distribution of Capex in 2012

Market Issues

Nuclear Plant Shutdowns: The Situation

• Reactor shutdowns

- Four in 2013

- One at the end of 2014

• Crystal River 3, San Onofre 2 and 3 were unique events

- Over 110 PWRs (57 in the U.S.) have replaced steam generators

• Kewaunee, Vermont Yankee shut down because of adverse market conditions.

Market Issues … At a Glance

• Price signals inadequate to support operating capacity, or investment in new capacity except gas-fired

• Prices suppressed by RTO policies and actions, and by state and federal mandates and subsidies

• Fuel/technology diversity is taken for granted and undervalued

• Failure to address problems will:

- Compromise resource adequacy and reliability

- Expose consumers to increasing price volatility

- Frustrate efforts to reduce carbon emissions

Efficient Markets Do Not Make Inefficient Economic Decisions

$50.86 $46.60

$50.10 $53.70

$57.30 $60.80

$64.40

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

$70

Small single-unit nuclear

plant

Gas at $3.50 Gas at $4.00 Gas at $4.50 Gas at $5.00 Gas at $5.50 Gas at $6.00

($ per MWh)

Sources: 2010-2012 average total generating cost of seven small (approx. 600 MW) nuclear plants from Electric Utility Cost Group (EUCG). Gas-fired combined cycle plant costs from NEI financial model: Debt at 5.0%, 15% return on equity, debt/equity structure of 50/50. Capital, O&M and fuel cost assumptions for natural gas are from the Energy Information Administration’s Annual Energy Outlook 2013.

• Kewaunee 2009-2011 capacity factor: 95%

• Vermont Yankee 2010-2012 capacity factor: 90%

• Nothing wrong with the plants; something wrong with the markets

New combined cycle gas plant

All Electricity Is Not The Same

• Basic economics - Markets can only allocate efficiently goods that have a price

- Goods will only be produced when markets assign a price to them

• Different forms of electricity have different attributes: Every kilowatt-hour has a pedigree

• Those attributes have varying degrees of value to the market

• Merchant markets do not recognize or monetize valuable attributes of nuclear plants

Nuclear Energy: A Solid Value Proposition Safe, Reliable Electricity 24-by-7-by-365 Plus …

Supports Grid

Reliability

Provides Price

Stability

Provides Clean Air

Compliance Value

Contributes to Fuel and Technology

Diversity

Anchors the Local

Community: Jobs, Tax Base

Avoids Carbon

Emissions

Fukushima Response

Response to Fukushima: Major Focus Areas

• Improved ability to cope with extended loss of AC power

• Additional spent fuel storage pool instrumentation

• Reliable containment venting

• External hazard (seismic and flooding) re-evaluations

• Enhanced emergency planning for multi-reactor events

Nuclear Regulatory Commission graphic

FLEX Approach Enhances Safety

• FLEX will handle those extreme, unexpected scenarios that are beyond the plants’ design basis

• Focus on maintaining key safety functions

• Each nuclear plant site maintains backup portable safety equipment

• Regional response centers being developed and equipped in Memphis and Phoenix

A Tale of Two Nuclear Power Plants

• Only six miles from each other but a world apart in coping with the tsunami.

• At the Daini plant, operators responded with something like the U.S. nuclear industry’s FLEX strategy, saved all four reactors.

Fukushima Daiichi Fukushima Daini

New Plant Construction

VC Summer Units 2 & 3

Steve Byrne

Chief Operating Officer, SCE&G

Safe Harbor Statement / Regulation G Information Statements included in this presentation which are not statements of historical fact are intended to be, and are hereby identified as, “forward-looking statements” for purposes of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements concerning key earnings drivers, customer growth, environmental regulations and expenditures, leverage ratio, projections for pension fund contributions, financing activities, access to sources of capital, impacts of the adoption of new accounting rules and estimated construction and other expenditures. In some cases, forward-looking statements can be identified by terminology such as “may,” “will,” “could,” “should,” “expects,” “forecasts,” “plans,” “anticipates,” “believes,” “estimates,” “projects,” “predicts,” “potential” or “continue” or the negative of these terms or other similar terminology. Readers are cautioned that any such forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve a number of risks and uncertainties, and that actual results could differ materially from those indicated by such forward-looking statements. Important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those indicated by such forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, the following: (1) the information is of a preliminary nature and may be subject to further and/or continuing review and adjustment; (2) regulatory actions, particularly changes in rate regulation, regulations governing electric grid reliability and pipeline integrity, environmental regulations, and actions affecting the construction of new nuclear units; (3) current and future litigation; (4) changes in the economy, especially in areas served by subsidiaries of SCANA; (5) the impact of competition from other energy suppliers, including competition from alternate fuels in industrial markets; (6) the impact of conservation and demand side management efforts and/or technological advances on customer usage; (7) the loss of sales to distributed generation, such as solar photovoltaic systems; (8) growth opportunities for SCANA’s regulated and diversified subsidiaries; (9) the results of short- and long-term financing efforts, including prospects for obtaining access to capital markets and other sources of liquidity; (10) the effects of weather, especially in areas where the generation and transmission facilities of SCANA and its subsidiaries (the Company) are located and in areas served by SCANA's subsidiaries; (11) changes in SCANA’s or its subsidiaries’ accounting rules and accounting policies; (12) payment and performance by counterparties and customers as contracted and when due; (13) the results of efforts to license, site, construct and finance facilities for electric generation and transmission; (14) maintaining creditworthy joint owners for SCE&G’s new nuclear generation project; (15) the ability of suppliers, both domestic and international, to timely provide the labor, secure processes, components, parts, tools, equipment and other supplies needed, at agreed upon prices, for our construction program, operations and maintenance; (16) the results of efforts to ensure the physical and cyber security of key assets and processes; (17) the availability of fuels such as coal, natural gas and enriched uranium used to produce electricity; the availability of purchased power and natural gas for distribution; the level and volatility of future market prices for such fuels and purchased power; and the ability to recover the costs for such fuels and purchased power; (18) the availability of skilled and experienced human resources to properly manage, operate, and grow the Company’s businesses; (19) labor disputes; (20) performance of SCANA’s pension plan assets; (21) changes in taxes; (22) inflation or deflation; (23) compliance with regulations; (24) natural disasters and man-made mishaps that directly affect our operations or the regulations governing them; and (25) the other risks and uncertainties described from time to time in the periodic reports filed by SCANA or SCE&G with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company disclaims any obligation to update any forward-looking statements. During this presentation, certain non-GAAP measures (as defined by SEC Regulation G) may be disclosed. A reconciliation of those measures to the most directly comparable GAAP measures is included on our website at www.scana.com in the Investor Relations section under Regulation G Information.

Note: Reflects new nuclear projected costs as filed February 2014 in BLRA Quarterly Report; SCE&G 55% share * SCE&G’s additional 5% ownership interest in the new nuclear project does not impact the BLRA projected cost calculation

New Nuclear Projected Costs (in billions)

$3

$4

$5

$6

$7

$8

Order No.2009-104(A)

Order No.2010-12

Order No.2011-345

Order No.2012-884

November 2013BLRA Report

February 2014BLRA Report

Capital Cost, 2007 Dollars AFUDC Escalation

~$633M

New Nuclear Total Projected Costs (SCE&G 55% Share)*

$5.787

$5.651 $5.755

$6.875

$6.313

$5.680M

Overview of Project Status

Note: Reflects nuclear capex as filed February 2014 in BLRA Quarterly Report * SCE&G’s additional 5% ownership interest in the New Nuclear project does not impact the BLRA Projected Cost Calculation

$0

$1

$2

$3

$4

$5

$6

$7

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Bill

ion

s

SCE&G's 55% Share of Total Project Costs (Includes AFUDC, Transmission and Escalation)

Budget Projection

$5.7B Budget Budget $3.0B

Actual $2.4B

$5.8B Projection

On Hook Date Summary

Module Description Location of

Construction On Hook Date

CA-20

Auxiliary building module that will be located

outside and adjacent to the containment vessel

VC Summer Q1 2014

CA-01

Steam generator and refueling canal module

that will be located inside the containment vessel

Lake Charles Q3 2014

CA-03

Southwest wall module of the containment refueling water storage tank inside

of the containment building

Pegasus Steel Q4 2014

Switchyard

Contractor Support

Personnel

Turbine Building

Training & Storage

CV Assembly

Unit 2

Unit 3 MAB

Cooling Towers

HLD

CA20 Assembly Map

~70 ft

~45 ft

Unit 2 Module CA20

Unit 2 Turbine Building Layout

Set Complete

In progress GERB springs and

Dampers

Lower A

Lower B Lower C

Hydro Support Steel

CH80

Upper A

Upper B Upper C

CH82 CH81A CH81B

CH81C

C Upper Condenser

A Upper Condenser

B Upper Condenser

A Lower Condenser

B Lower Condenser

C Lower Condenser

CH 81A CH 81B CH 80

Unit 2 Turbine Building Progress

Cooling Tower 2A

• 7,000 cubic yards • 43-hour continuous pour • No construction joints

Unit 3 Basemat Pour

Video: SCE&G Completes Nuclear Island Basemat Placement for V.C. Summer Unit 3

http://youtu.be/bFQ6CyeB8G8

SCE&G Generation Mix

2013 2018 2019 2020

Alt. Resources 1% 1% 1% 1%

Coal 45% 34% 23% 23%

Gas 26% 22% 12% 14%

Nuclear 24% 39% 60% 58%

Hydro 4% 4% 4% 4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Alt.ResourcesCoal

Gas

2013 2018 2019 2020

Alt. Resources 1% 1% 1% 1%

Coal 41% 33% 28% 27%

Gas 32% 30% 27% 27%

Nuclear 12% 22% 31% 32%

Hydro 14% 14% 13% 13%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Non-emitting

62%

Balanced Portfolio

By Dispatch By Capacity

Note: Reflects SCE&G’s Preliminary Estimate for the 2014 Integrated Resource Plan to be filed February 2014.

SCE&G CO2 Emissions

Note: Reflects SCE&G’s Preliminary Estimate for the 2014 Integrated Resource Plan to be filed February 2014.

7

9

11

13

15

17

19

21

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

M T

on

s

Actual Projected 1995 Actual 2005 Actual

Vogtle 3 and 4

Steve Kuczynski

Chairman, President and CEO

Southern Nuclear Operating Company

Forward Looking Statement Certain information contained in this release is forward-looking information based on current expectations and plans that involve risks and uncertainties. Forward-looking information includes, among other things, statements concerning projected cost and schedule for the completion of construction, rate adjustments, regulatory filings, benefits of ongoing construction projects, ad valorem taxes, job creation and operational readiness. Georgia Power Company cautions that there are certain factors that can cause actual results to differ materially from the forward-looking information that has been provided. The reader is cautioned not to put undue reliance on this forward-looking information, which is not a guarantee of future performance and is subject to a number of uncertainties and other factors, many of which are outside the control of Georgia Power Company; accordingly, there can be no assurance that such suggested results will be realized. The following factors, in addition to those discussed in Georgia Power Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012, and subsequent securities filings, could cause actual results to differ materially from management expectations as suggested by such forward-looking information: the impact of recent and future federal and state regulatory changes, as well as changes in application of existing laws and regulations; ability to control costs and avoid cost overruns during the development and construction of the Plant Vogtle expansion, to construct facilities in accordance with the requirements of permits and licenses, and to satisfy any operational and environmental performance standards; state and federal rate regulations and the impact of pending and future rate cases and negotiations, including rate actions relating to fuel and other cost recovery mechanisms; regulatory approvals and actions related to the Plant Vogtle expansion, including Georgia Public Service Commission approvals, Nuclear Regulatory Commission actions, and potential U.S. Department of Energy loan guarantees; the inherent risks involved in operating and constructing nuclear generating facilities, including environmental, health, regulatory, natural disaster, terrorism, and financial risks; and the ability of counterparties of Georgia Power Company to make payments as and when due and to perform as required. Georgia Power Company expressly disclaims any obligation to update any forward-looking information.

• Our uncompromising focus is on safety and quality.

• Focusing on safety and quality will ensure this investment improves Georgia’s communities and neighborhoods for generations to come.

Focus: Safety and Quality

Schedule

2005 2006 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2007

Prepared COL Application NRC Review

IRP / PSC Certification

Design Certification Revision

Construction Pre-Construction and

LWA

Unit 3 Complete

Unit 4 Complete

NRC Review

2018

Prepared ESP Application

• Even more beneficial for customers today than it was at GPC certification

• Largest infrastructure project in Georgia that will employ approximately 5,000 people during peak construction

• Create 800 full-time, highly skilled and highly paid careers

• Pay a peak of $60M - $70M in ad valorem taxes for Units 1-4 once the new units are online

• Produce electricity to power 500,000 Georgia homes and businesses

Economic Impact and Benefits

Certification vs. Forecast In-service cost, $ in millions, Georgia Power ownership

$-

$1,000

$2,000

$3,000

$4,000

$5,000

$6,000

Certification Forecast Capital Only

Current Forecast Capital Only

$381

$4,799

$4,418

Customer Impact and Benefits

Rate Impact

• Remains between 6 and 8 percent with benefits

Benefits

• CWIP in rate base

• Production tax credits

• Low interest rates

• Expected DOE loan guarantee CWIP – Construction Work in Progress DOE – Department of Energy

Progress in 2013

December 2013 January 2013

Unit 3 Nuclear Island

Progress in 2013

December 2013 January 2013

Unit 3 Turbine Building

Progress in 2013

December 2013 January 2013

Unit 3 Cooling Tower

Unit 4 Nuclear Island

CA20 Module

Unit 3 Nuclear Island – 2014 Activity

Current View

CA-04CB-65

Auxiliary Building Walls

to Elevation 82’6”

Waste Tanks

Middle Ring

Auxiliary Building Walls to

Elevation 100’

CA-20

Lower Ring

CA-01

Shield Building

Panel Installation

CA-03

CA-02(Inside Vessel)

CA-05(Inside Vessel)Projected

Year-End View

• Continued training success

• Fully loaded simulator for training

• Begin integration of site

2014 – Operational Readiness

• Vogtle 3&4 represents the best economic value over available alternatives today

• Costs for actual EPC remain stable and represent a less-than-1-percent increase in the certified capital costs

• Verification and approval of all capital cost ($2.21B) to date

• Combined 9th/10th VCM to be filed on February 28, 2014

- Covers the period of January 1, 2013, through December 31, 2013

Vogtle Construction Monitoring

EPC: Engineering, Procurement and Construction VCM: Vogtle Construction Monitoring

ILT – Initial Licensed Operating Training

51

2014 and Beyond

Nuclear Energy Education Campaign

Broad-based, highly visible, sustained campaign:

• Ensure that federal, state and local policy-makers, political leaders, opinion leaders, the public understand:

- strategic value of nuclear plants as part of diverse portfolio

- value of fuel and technology diversity

- some existing nuclear generating capacity at risk

• Create a political environment that can lead to the necessary policy changes

Taking a Longer-Term Perspective

Energy Source Total Percent of Total

Coal 19,472 45.2%

Natural Gas 12,167 28.2%

Oil 6,793 15.8%

Nuclear 3,554 8.2%

Hydro 658 1.5%

Biomass, Waste 268 0.6%

Source: Ventyx

Power Plant Shutdowns Since 2010: Not Just a Nuclear Issue (generating capacity in megawatts)

• Electricity demand will grow as the economy recovers

- EIA forecast: 0.6% per year or 28% by 2040 (297,500 MW)

• 100 GW of fossil capacity retired 2011-2020, most by 2016

- 20% of coal-fired fleet shut down by 2020 (without carbon limits)

• Natural gas price volatility will continue

Nuclear Energy 2014: Status and Outlook

Annual Briefing for the Financial Community

February 13, 2014