John Young, the chief executive of Energy Future Holdings, has been hard at work this year chatting up politicians and community leaders to stabilize the company's reputation.

The company formerly known as TXU Corp. upset a lot of consumers and politicians when it announced plans in 2006 to build 11 coal-fired plants.

Then the sudden buyout last year by private equity companies left some folks skeptical about the interests of their hometown utility.

The new owners, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. and TPG, have spent time assuring Texans of their good intentions, partly by reducing construction plans to three coal plants.

Now Mr. Young, who had been the chief financial officer for Chicago power company Exelon Corp., is gearing up for his first Texas legislative session early next year and bracing for a new round of complaints from legislators about high electricity prices.

Six months into the job, Mr. Young sat down with Business staff members of The Dallas Morning News for his first media interview.

What do your bosses, the owners of Energy Future Holdings, expect of you?

The fact that they're a private equity owner vs. a public company, there's almost no difference. ... They really wanted me to bring the same operational discipline and rigor, the financial focus. And for me, and for this situation, a need to re-engage all the constituents that this company touches. You know, shake hands with and get to meet and know on a personal basis the business community, the civic community, elected officials, regulatory folks.

Are you re-engaging because there was a feeling that things were broken or because that's just important to them?

It's important to them, it's important to me. It's actually something I brought up. ... I've read the stuff that's been printed here and [in] the other media outlets. It didn't look like things were in the right condition, so my own mantra was to re-engage the constituents and put a face and a name on who this company is.

What will you ask for during the legislative session?

I can't think of anything that we're going to be proactively seeking, which is probably a good position to be in.

What is your risk assessment for the possibility of some form of re-regulation in Austin – price caps, for example?

I never say it won't happen because it can. I'm having a hard time thinking about how. Tweaks can be more likely. ... But there's an expectation that somehow there's a free lunch in this thing, and I don't know where that comes from. In some other jurisdictions where I've been, they've provided caps that come out of somebody's pocket. ... It's high on my radar as a risk assessment.

What do you urge Washington politicians to do on carbon dioxide regulations?

We are a proponent of the cap-and-trade system [which caps emissions and allows companies to trade emission credits]. ... We do support the investment in technologies and believe technology will provide a significant solution to these things. Make sure any timetable affords itself of the benefit of those technologies. Any policy position should be economy-wide, not just directed at auto manufacturers or us. ...

A cap-and-trade system [should include] a cost containment mechanism. It is vital because of the impacts that would have on bill payers in the country. The numbers ... can be frightening.

We hear from a lot of readers who are very frustrated about high electricity prices. What would you say to those folks?

There's a tremendous amount of good that people can do around how you consume electricity ... timers on hot water heaters, insulating your home, making sure your thermostat's set correctly, changing the filters, all the demand-side stuff. ...

Could the [cost of the fuel mix] go down again? Yes. Will it return to where it was just three or four, five years ago? I don't think so.

We're in a particularly near-term high-price fuel scenario right now that could go down. [Natural gas] has gone as high as $13 per British thermal unit recently; it could go down to $9, $7, and that has a dramatic impact on your readers' bills. I don't personally see that going to $5. I don't personally see it going much below $7, if all the stars align.

Do we need to learn to live with higher electricity prices?

I don't think you just learn to live with it. I think you learn to deploy and respond to those things. ... That's what unregulated markets are really all about. The consumer has to act; that's their responsibility. ... And that action isn't just one of complaint.

If every residential consumer did all the conservation they could, would it have any impact on the price of electricity?

It could have huge impacts. ... It's taken what used to be 6 and 7 percent growth rates [to a] robust 2. And we used to have to build a whole bunch of plants for that 6 or 7 percent growth rate. ...

Conservation is expected to have an impact going forward of a half of a percentage to three-quarters of a percentage point of load growth. That's based on the penetrations we've seen through customer behavior. Right now penetrations [of consumers practicing conservation] are at 10, 15 percent ranges on a good day.

When many of our readers hear about Oncor electric delivery installing new high-tech meters, they have two concerns: It costs money, and they worry that their electricity company could reach into their house and turn their appliances on and off.

The company cannot reach into your house and do what you've just described. Not until you personally invest in stuff on that side of the meter or sign an arrangement in some venue with the electricity provider to do it for you. ...

The cost was minimized through the wide deployment. And you know changing [to] one of those [compact fluorescent] light bulbs [that Oncor is giving away] pays the cost [to consumers for the new meters].

How do you generate the cash you need to pay off the billions in debt the owners took on to buy the company?

The vast majority in net contribution that goes toward paying down the debt – if you can isolate it this way, which you can't – will come from the completion of the three [coal-fired] plants that are under way right now. So that has already been funded, and we're paying off the interest right now. That will start generating revenue that will be available to pay off the debt on top of interest starting next summer, next fall and the following spring as those units come online.

Are the two proposed new nuclear reactors at Comanche Peak important for your business strategy?

If we started [building] that today, it wouldn't happen until 2015, 2016, 2017. We do five-year [financial] plans, and then we do macro plans. But our five-year plan doesn't have anything in it of substance for [new reactors] because the cash wouldn't be required.

If the owners have committed to owning the company for five years, how can you make plans to invest in a 10-year nuclear plant?

First of all the commitment, as I understand it, is the owners said they would stay at least five years. There are no discussions around them not being here. ...

And the way companies are valued, even if we were a public company and started to build [more reactors at Comanche Peak], it would impact the value of our stock. So the fact that something is coming on line, it doesn't start to create value the day it creates cash. It starts to create value when it's perceived to be a good investment.

Print

E-mail this article

Forums

Check Screen Name Availability

Screen names can only consist of letters and numbers.

---

Leave Comment

Conversation guidelines: We welcome your thoughts and information related to this article. When leaving comments please stay on topic and be respectful of others.

You must be logged in to contribute. Log in | Register Now!

You are logged in as screenname | Log Out

You are logged in, but do not have a "screen" name. Update Your Profile

Showing:

Newest first Oldest first

---