EXHIBIT 99.1
[Cover Page:]
[Exelon logo]
Exelon Nuclear
Nuclear Vision: To be the premier nuclear operator worldwide
Industry benchmark for operational excellence
o Best practices identified, implemented and transferred fleetwide
o Event-free operations
o World-class processes designed and implemented
High-quality and reliable generation
o Impeccable material and equipment condition
o Best operating practices
o World-class refueling outages
Talent and experience at all levels of the organization
o Capable management team
o Well-trained and engaged employees
Cost competitive-target 2(cent)/kWh all-in cost by 2003
o Capture synergies and economies of scale
[Includes a map of the eastern U.S. which pinpoints the location of
Exelon's nuclear plants.]
2002 Exelon Nuclear Fleet*
# Plant NSSS Net Annual
Units Type Vendor Mean Rating (MW) Start Date License Expires Ownership
Braidwood 2 PWR W 1,214/1,158 1988 2026/2027 100%
Byron 2 PWR W 1,207/1,184 1985/1987 2024/2026 100%
Clinton 1 BWR GE 933 1987 2026 50% Exelon (100% AmerGen)
Dresden 2 BWR GE 864/795 1970/1971 2009/2011 100%
LaSalle 2 BWR GE 1,147/1,151 1984 2022/2023 100%
Limerick 2 BWR GE 1,156 each 1986/1990 2024/2029 100%
Oyster Creek 1 BWR GE 630 1969 2009 50% Exelon (100% AmerGen)
Peach Bottom 2 BWR GE 1,110/1,114 1974 2013/2014 50% Exelon, 50% PSEG Power
Quad Cities 2 BWR GE 775/787 1973 2012 75% Exelon, 25% Mid-American Energy Holdings
TMI-1 1 PWR B&W 835 1974 2014 50% Exelon (100% AmerGen)
Total 17 17,216 14,515 MW owned
(AmerGen 2,398)
* Exelon also owns a 42.59% interest in Salem Units 1 and 2. Salems operating
statistics are not included in this publication.
Fleet Strategy
Effective management of a fleet this size requires a fleet management strategy
and system
Exelon Nuclear Management Model
o Standardization of processes and programs
o Drive synergies and leverage core competencies
Corporate oversight, governance and support model
Aggressive performance standards and expectations
o Operational execution excellence
Assessment, development and effective use of a deep management bench
o Strong, experienced management team
Spring 2002
[Page 2:]
Nuclear Business Strategy
Be the Premier Nuclear Operator Worldwide
To achieve this vision, we plan to:
o Improve fleet efficiency
o Increase fleet output
o Sustain fleet operational excellence
Improve Fleet Efficiency
[Includes a bar graph entitled "Production Cost" which displays the planned
production cost for years 2000 through 2004, compares actual costs for years
2000 & 2001, and compares those costs to industry median and top quartile costs.
Production cost ($/MWh) is on the vertical axis, years and refueling outages by
year are on the horizontal axis, and the graph represents the following data:]
Production Cost
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
plan ($/MWh) 15.96 13.85 14.2 13.8 13.9
actual ($/MWh) 14.65 12.78
industry median ($/MWh) 16.2 16.2 16.2 16.2 16.2
top quartile ($/MWh) 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4
Planned refueling outages (#) 11 6 11 8 10
[Next to the graph appears the following text:]
The fleet has competitive operating costs
o Fleet aggregate average production cost is in industry top quartile
Fleet has captured merger synergies
o Staffing reductions
o Supply savings
[Includes a waterfall chart entitled "All-in Costs at 95% Capacity Factor" which
displays the cents/kWh cost of generating electricity and shows the 2001 actual
costs and the expected changes in cost components which lead to electricity cost
targets for 2002 and 2003:
o 2001 actual all-in cost = 2.04 cents/kWh
o 5 additional refueling outages in 2002 will add .06 cents/kWh
o 2002 all-in cost goal = 2.10 cents/kWh
o Increased pensions and benefits will add .02 cents/kWh to all-in cost
o Increased fuel costs will add .02 cents/kWh to all-in cost
o 3 fewer outages will save .03 cents/kWh
o Additional output will lower all-in cost by .05 cents/kWh
o Lower operating and maintenance costs will save .06 cents/kWh
o 2003 all-in cost goal = 2.00 cents/kWh
The following text appears next to the graph:]
Target-2(cent)/kWh all-in cost by 2003
o Competitive with any other power supply; always dispatch
Manage O&M costs
o Achieve staffing reduction targets
- Benchmark to best sites
- Support single-site competitiveness
o Site-by-site cost comparison
o Synergies/efficiencies
Manage fuel costs
o Changing supply market
Manage non-production costs
o Taxes, pensions and benefits
o Corporate overheads
Manage capital costs
[Page 3:]
Increase Fleet Output
[Includes a bar graph entitled "Capacity Factor" which displays projected
average fleet capacity factors (in %) from 2000 through 2004 and compares to
2000 and 2001 actual and industry top quartile capacity factors.]
Capacity factor
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
plan 90.6 92 91 93 93
actual 93.8 94.4
top quartile 92.5 92.5 92.5 92.5 92.5
[The following text appears next to the graph:]
Increase fleet capacity factor
o Continue to reduce average refueling duration
o Reduce forced outage rate
o Implement best-in-class operating practices fleetwide
[Includes a bar graph entitled "Net Generation" which displays planned fleet
generation in million mWh for 2000 through 2004 and compares to actual
generation in 2000 & 2001.]
Net Generation
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
plan 113.5 115.8 117 120 121
actual 115 118
[Includes a waterfall chart entitled "MW Additions" which displays in MW the MW
additions to the fleet achieved in 2000 and 2001 and the planned additions for
2002 through 2004, and which distinguishes between uprates and other additions.]
Uprates other additions
achieved 2000 114 53
achieved 2001 271 20
planned 2002-2004 510 52
[The following text appears next to the bar graph:]
Exelon Nuclear is adding capacity
o Power uprates already achieved-385 MW
o Other additions achieved-73 MW
o Power uprates scheduled for 2002-2004 ~510 MW
o Other potential additions ~52 MW
Equivalent of adding new 1,000 MW unit at cost well below that of new gas
generation
[Page 4:]
Sustain Fleet Operational Excellence
Size brings benefit
o Significant pool of expertise and experience
o Nuclear industry strategic policy and program leadership
o Economies of scale in purchasing, materials management and resource sharing
o Career development opportunities
Management team experience in:
o Turning around poor performers
o Improving good performers
o Sustaining excellent performance-cost and production
Transfer of expertise and best practices fleetwide
We are leveraging the scale and experience of the organization through a proven
fleet management model
Able to keep plants running longer - safely and profitably
License Extension
License Expiration Renewal Plans
Peach Bottom 2 and 3 2013, 2014 Application was submitted July 2001
Dresden 2 and 3 2009, 2011 Application planned in 2003
Quad Cities 1 and 2 2012 Application planned in 2003
Oyster Creek 2009 Under review
TMI-1 2014 Under review
2001 Accomplishments
o 94.4% capacity factor-top quartile
o Production cost reduced 12% from 2000
o All-in cost under-run of $138 million
o 6 sites had their highest net generation ever
o 5 sites had their highest capacity factor ever
o 8 sites had their lowest production cost ever
o 7 sites had their best INPO index ever
o Limerick Generating Station in Pennsylvania set a U.S. record for the
shortest boiling water reactor refueling at 16 days, 8 hours. The average
duration of the fleet's six refuelings was 25 days. The industry average in
2001 was 38 days.
o Braidwood Unit 1 ran for 535 days of continuous operation, a record for the
company's Midwest Regional operating group.
[Page 5:]
Fleet Performance History
[Includes a graph entitled "INPO Performance Index" which compares Exelon's
score on the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations Performance Index to the U.S.
industry median score.]
INPO Index
1998 1999 2000 2001
Exelon 82.3 85.7 94 95.6
U.S. Industry Median 89.4 92.5 94 94.9
[Includes a graph entitled "Capacity Factor" which compares Exelon's capacity to
that of the industry top quartile.]
Capacity Factor
1999 2000 2001
Exelon 88.5 93.8 94.4
U.S. Top Quartile 92.5 92.5 92.5
[Includes a bar graph entitled "Average Refueling Outage Duration" which
displays the average number of days of refueling outage for Exelon's fleet and
compares to U.S. industry average.]
Average Refueling Outage Duration
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Exelon 58 53 30 22 25
U.S. Industry 64 51 40 38 38
[Includes a bar graph entitled "Production Cost" which displays Exelon's
production cost in $/mWh and compares to industry top quartile.]
Production Cost
1999 2000 2001
Exelon 16.20 14.66 12.78
Industry Top Quartile 14.40 14.40 14.40
[Page 6:]
Nuclear Generation Is a Sound Business
Nuclear Power in the U.S. Has Established a Strong Track Record
o Long history of safe, improved operations
o Significantly improved economics
o Recognition of environmental advantages
o Predictable, constructive nuclear regulatory environment
o Clear process for life extension and license renewal
o Fuel price stability
Nuclear Power Offers Low Costs and Fuel Price Stability
[Includes a bar graph entitled "U.S. Electricity Production Costs" which
compares the cents/kWh cost of nuclear, coal, gas, and oil generation, according
to the Nuclear Energy Institute.]
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
nuclear 2.25 2.1 2.04 2.36 2.18 1.83 1.76
coal 2.16 2.05 1.94 2.17 2.12 2.07 1.79
gas 3.32 2.93 3.59 3.63 3.37 3.52 5.69
oil 3.69 4.12 4.4 3.95 3.31 3.18 5.28
[Includes a bar graph entitled "U.S. Fuel Cost Volatility" which compares $/mWh
fuel cost for nuclear, fossil, and gas turbine generation from 1995 through
1999.]
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Nuclear 5.75 5.5 5.42 5.39 5.17
Fossil 16.07 16.51 16.8 15.94 15.62
Gas Turbines 20.83 30.58 24.94 23.02 28.72
Nuclear power as a substantial portion of a balanced supply portfolio is a
competitive strength.
This publication contains certain forward-looking statements within the meaning
of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements are
based on management's current expectations and are subject to uncertainty and
changes in circumstances. Actual results may vary materially from the
expectations contained herein. The forward-looking statements herein include
statements about future financial and operating results of Exelon. Economic,
business, competitive and/or regulatory factors affecting Exelon's businesses
generally could cause actual results to differ materially from those described
herein. For a discussion of the factors that could cause actual results to
differ materially, please see "Risk Factors" and "Management's Discussion and
Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations" in Exelon Generation
Company's Registration Statement on Form S-4, Reg. No. 333-85496 and Exelon's
and Exelon Generation Company's filings with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, particularly those discussed in "Management's Discussion and
Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations-Outlook" in Exelon's
2001 Annual Report. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these
forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date of this document.
Exelon does not undertake any obligation to publicly release any revisions to
these forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances after the
date of this publication.
A publication of the Exelon Investor Relations Department. Linda C. Byus, Vice
President; Marybeth M. Flater, Manager; Isabel Fabre, Sr. Analyst; Ronald P.
Torres, Sr. Analyst For more information, call 312-394-2345 or fax 312-394-4082.
[Exelon logo]
Exelon Corporation
10 S. Dearborn
P.O. Box 805379
Chicago, IL 60680-5379
Phone 312-394-7398
www.exeloncorp.com