Cobus Loots, CEO of Pan African Resources, on delivering sector-leading returns for shareholders. Watch the video here.
Continued from previous post: Stefan Leedham, acting head of governance at ElectraLink: “The energy industry has been grappling with how best to address this issue for a number of years. The plans outlined today will affect a large number of generators. Cutting embedded benefits could impact much needed investment in the sector and more broadly affect the energy market which is already in flux. The level of the proposed changes demonstrates the impact that could occur if these issues are not addressed quickly. The increasing volume of embedded generation has meant that more GSPs have started to export energy as the volume of embedded generation increases. We continue to believe there is value in undertaking a holistic review of the electricity charging regimes covering transmission and distribution to ensure they are set up to accommodate increasing levels of storage and smart grids; and avoid step changes which harm investor confidence.” James Court, head of policy and external affairs, Renewable Energy Association: “This decision flies in the face in the face of where the industry is trying to move, making decentralised and renewable technologies more expensive whilst rewarding existing incumbent fossil fuels. “Grid charging is complex, trying to unpick one area seriously distorts the whole market. We, along with the vast majority of the industry, have been calling for a significant code review to look at the entire area to ensure that charges are fair and appropriate. This highlights the problems of a selected few making decisions on behalf of the whole sector.” Jacob Hayler, executive director, ESA: “These cuts will not only cause serious damage to the UK’s transition to low-carbon energy sources, but will threaten our resource efficiency ambitions by raising costs of waste management for local authorities and disincentivising resource efficient use of waste as a fuel. ” Network charging is highly complex and we are concerned that Ofgem is rushing through changes that will have unintended consequences. Energy generated from waste is a reliable source of low-carbon baseload electricity which contributes to the UK’s security of supply whilst keeping costs down for consumers. Ofgem appears to be ignoring this and will inadvertently force smaller more sustainable generators out of the market. “Rather than targeting embedded benefits in isolation, Ofgem should undertake a holistic review of network charging to avoid wider distortions.” Tim Rotheray, director, ADE: “Ofgem’s proposal will support increased coal generation at the expense of the smarter, more flexible and innovative energy solutions we should be supporting. “Ofgem has depended on a rushed industry review, led by large coal and gas generation interests, and has not undertaken the kind of robust evidence gathering that we would expect for a decision worth hundreds of millions of pounds. Ofg
I have nerve heard someone talk so much drivel. Scare mongering, trying to pick up stock on the cheap and shorting is your game. All the information one needs to gain comfort and know that PPG is a growing and successful business with the a balanced and sensible business model, is in the past RNS’s. Don’t let idiots and scare mongers deflect you from the facts and reality of what is a strong business that is not reliant on just one income stream but many. An extract taken from the latest RNS from Phil Stephens “PPG and its projects benefit from access to multiple revenue streams in addition to TRIAD, namely Short Term Operating Reserve (STOR) and Firm Frequency Response (FFR) as well as receipt of the prevailing power price at the time of generation. For PPG, the maiden profits recently reported in the Company's interim results were achieved via the receipt of management contracts for its projects before the commissioning of its Plymouth site, highlighting the continued scope for profit growth as it continues to add projects to its pipeline.” Triad is a small part of this companies income and a mere cherry on top of a cake. The next year will deliver more success and profit from the deals / sites already in place (see previous RNS’s) Funding is already in place for all the previously outlined sites including funding from one of the big six utility companies Pipeline of opportunities is very strong and real and nothing to do with TRIAD A large swathe of the energy industry is up in arms about this report and it is really important to underline it is just ONLY a report. Energy Industry responses / Looking at opposition to the Ofgem proposal and it is widespread. Here are some key opponents statement; Tim Emrich, chief executive, UK Power Reserve: “We agree that reform is needed which balances the requirements for security of supply, value to consumers and decarbonisation of power generation. However, the current proposal to reform the long-standing triad system so quickly cuts across the need to maintain investor confidence by not enacting retrospective changes on historic investment decisions. ” Our analysis demonstrates that changes of this sort, whilst superficially appearing to deliver short term benefits for consumers, will in the long run result in higher costs: further subsidies will be required to keep old and unreliable coal plant open as investment in new, flexible gas plant is deterred. The energy system is already hugely biased towards maintaining the status quo. And the result of these changes will be to sustain legacy coal and gas power stations which are dirty, inflexible and uneconomic. Our journey towards a smarter, cleaner and more affordable energy system is being dealt a big blow today.” Stefan Leedham, acting head of governance at ElectraLink: “The energy industry has been grappling with how best to address this issue for a number of years
Where did you get this info from re the 15th? I believe that they are at first draft ideas / proposal for discussion with industry. As far as I am aware the consultation is months and months away
Just checked and it is 100% a buy / delayed print
Plutus PowerGen is building a strong portfolio of flexible generation assets in the UK in our view. We think that the demand for these assets is set to grow as the impact of the recent build-up of intermittent renewables puts pressure on a tightening power market. We initiate with a BUY recommendation and a target price of 3.8p. 220MW can deliver a valuation of 3.8p Plutus now has 60MW of capacity with planning permission and a further 160MW which it expects to commission over the course of 2016 and 2017. Given the stage of development of these assets we see a DCF approach as appropriate for valuation and use a cost of equity of 12.0% and cost of debt of 6.0% to generate a valuation of 3.8p bsaed on 220MW of capacity.
Cantor Fitzgerald has just put out a buy recommendation and a target price of 3.8p, that has to be good news & will I am sure bring more confidence and buyers to the PPG table.