On December 1st, the German energy utility company E.ON announced it would spin off its conventional energy generation, upstream and trading businesses, and focus on renewable energy, networks and customer solutions. E.ON’s current shareholders will receive shares in this new company, in addition to their holdings in the parent company. E.ON will keep a minority stake in the new company and will divest from it in the medium term. Although this announcement came as a surprise, many investors expected radical change in response to six years of dwindling market capitalization and poor financial results.
The initial market reactions to this announcement were mixed. While some analysts welcomed the “bold new beginning” of the former European utility markets leader, others were not convinced that breaking up the vertically integrated company would actually create shareholder value. However, the market reality E.ON has been facing recently made a big change necessary.
A tale of two worlds: from volume to value
As E.ON’s senior management underscored in their official announcement, utilities have seen the rise of two very different energy worlds: a low-carbon bound market, where customers want more efficient, flexible and environmentally friendly energy solutions, and an “old” underlying energy system where conventional thermal power plants still provide much of the base load power needed to heat and light homes, offices and factories throughout developed countries. These two worlds illustrate the currently observed transition from a linear energy value chain, where centralized power generation provides energy through the grid to end users, to a customer-centered, flexible model, combining distributed generation and smart grids, with companies shifting their business models from volume to value. But while integrated smart grids and low-carbon energy solutions are being tested and deployed, the market still needs the old centralized energy system, which is for now the sole provider of security of supply.
According to the International Energy Agency, gas and coal will still account for 39% of the world’s total primary energy demand in 2040 in a low-carbon scenario. Therefore, these two worlds might co-exist for a long time to come. But with stagnating energy demand in developed countries, the growth prospects for the traditional energy utility model, based on the sale of kWh of energy, have become quite grim. At the same time, investments in capacity maintenance, development and resilience are still due. Someone has to continue paying for energy security, and for the transition from the old world to the new. A regulatory battle between policy makers and utilities on sharing this burden has been raging for the past years in most developed markets. How harmoniously those two energy worlds will coexist is not yet certain.
The smart-grid vs. energy security dilemma has been challenging the business models of utilities for quite some time now, and many have resisted the calls from the market to spin off, split or restructure their businesses in response to the evolving context. It is not the first time that utilities have been under pressure to drastically alter the way they do business. In the 1990s, the rise of the internet bubble made utilities appear very old-fashioned and gave way to companies like Enron which were striving to transition value creation from physical to immaterial assets (which didn’t work out well). In the 2000s, the European Commission pressured EU energy companies to spin off their gas and power networks in order to spur competition. The author advocated then that efficient market liberalization could be achieved without stripping utilities of their pipelines. Many energy companies resisted that call to split and remained integrated. Later that decade, financial markets again pressured some utilities to focus on energy generation and sell their networks; with the decoupling of energy demand and GDP, conventional power generation eventually lost its appeal. What E.ON does today is certainly adapting to a changing environment. But it also proves that the grid is now more than ever at the heart of the energy utility business.
A model for future energy utilities?
By breaking its business model along the fault line between the old world and the new, what E.ON basically has done is give its shareholders clarity and choice. E.ON itself has clearly chosen its side, keeping the name, logo and the majority of its employees in the company devoted to the new energy world. Many analysts see this move as a “divestment” of fossil fuels, which on behalf of the operator of one of the dirtiest coal-fired power plants in the world appears extremely audacious.
E.ON has practically called on other utilities to do the same, and some of them immediately reacted negatively, defending their integrated models. Experience tells us that energy utilities may be right about their industrial choices; and the transition to a low-carbon, more flexible and resilient energy model might also be achieved with vertically and horizontally integrated companies.
Governmental and regulatory organizations praised E.ON’s decision, and it appears indeed as a move comforting the process of liberalization of energy markets. But we should point out that it is a very different type of unbundling than the one European energy regulators fought for in the past decade. Instead of spinning off the networks, E.ON is placing them at the heart of the new model. This in a way vindicates the resistance by energy utilities to let go of their pipelines and power lines; and confirms the intuition that infrastructure is not only a profitable asset, it is also a core element of the energy market and a central piece in designing more flexible, efficient and resilient energy systems.
It’s about sustainable business
From an ESG performance point of view, the new E.ON practically covers all the best performing bits in terms of environmental and social criteria (energy efficiency, renewable energy, smart grids, and customer-oriented solutions). By contrast, the spin-off concentrates the “worst” ESG parts (nuclear, coal, gas, E&P, and also big hydro). A quick look into ESG databases shows that among European energy utilities, eight of the top 10 ESG performers are either pure network players, or are integrated utilities with infrastructure business. E.ON’s choice is significant as it separates the most risky assets of its utility business, especially regarding the issue of climate change.
Similar strategies have been successful before, including the spin-offs by Enel and EDF of their renewable energy businesses, respectively Enel Green Power in 2008 and EDF Energies Nouvelles in 2006. In addition to developing clean energy, those companies have been relatively successful in financial markets. E.ON seems to be replicating this strategy, but on a completely different scale: the parent company is now the clean energy utility. If the market embraces the new E.ON the way it has done for EDF Energies Nouvelles, then this might reveal a promising future.
The new element here again is the role of networks. A substantial part of the EBITDA of the new E.ON, it unveils how distributed energy and smart grids completely rehabilitate old-style gas and power grids. The time when banks and governments were pressing energy companies to sell their networks to pension funds might well be over.
What ultimately matters is not what assets a company possesses, but how they are organized, managed, and how solid, integrated and efficient the company culture is. Separating the two parts of E.ON, and giving them independent means to grow and develop, can potentially produce very positive results for both new companies. But the devil is in the details. The boundaries between the two companies are still not clear, and how financial, social and especially some industrial questions are settled (namely what is related to security of supply and nuclear decommissioning) can significantly change the outcome of the strategy.
The new E.ON has gathered the most promising sides of the utility business: energy services (therefore unleashing the potential of the energy efficiency business); renewable energy (with its tremendous growth prospects); and gas and power networks (and all the comfort that such regulated assets can provide, in addition to their untapped potential in the building of smart grids). As for the high-carbon, thermal power generating and trading company, the market may still offer some upsides, while we wait for a clear and binding international carbon strategy, and a global slowdown of energy demand.
 See our article on smart grids: /2014/04/smart-grid-infrastructure-status-infrastructure-and-risks/ The volume to value trend is similar to what happens with natural resource utilization: /2014/11/opportunities-in-waste-or-wasted-opportunities/
 Source: http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/
 Source: Sustainalytics. The pure network players have also outperformed their energy generation counterparts in terms of total return over the past 5 years (source: Bloomberg).
Margarita Pirovska is currently a shareholder in GDF SUEZ.
Cornerstone Capital Inc. doing business as Cornerstone Capital Group (“Cornerstone”) is a Delaware corporation with headquarters in New York, NY. All other marks referenced are the property of their respective owners. The Report is licensed for use by named individual Authorized Users, and may not be reproduced, distributed, forwarded, posted, published, transmitted, uploaded or otherwise made available to others for commercial purposes, including to individuals within an Institutional Subscriber without written authorization from Cornerstone.
The views expressed herein are the views of the individual authors and may not reflect the views of Cornerstone or any institution with which an author is affiliated. Such authors do not have any actual, implied or apparent authority to act on behalf of any issuer mentioned in this publication. This publication does not take into account the investment objectives, financial situation, restrictions, particular needs or financial, legal or tax situation of any particular person and should not be viewed as addressing the recipients’ particular investment needs. Recipients should consider the information contained in this publication as only a single factor in making an investment decision and should not rely solely on investment recommendations contained herein, if any, as a substitution for the exercise of independent judgment of the merits and risks of investments. This is not an offer or solicitation for the purchase or sale of any security, investment, or other product and should not be construed as such. References to specific securities and issuers are for illustrative purposes only and are not intended to be, and should not be interpreted as recommendations to purchase or sell such securities. Investing in securities and other financial products entails certain risks, including the possible loss of the entire principal amount invested. You should obtain advice from your tax, financial, legal, and other advisors and only make investment decisions on the basis of your own objectives, experience, and resources. Information contained herein is current as of the date appearing herein and has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but accuracy and completeness are not guaranteed and should not be relied upon as such. Cornerstone has no duty to update the information contained herein, and the opinions, estimates, projections, assessments and other views expressed in this publication (collectively “Statements”) may change without notice due to many factors including but not limited to fluctuating market conditions and economic factors. The Statements contained herein are based on a number of assumptions. Cornerstone makes no representations as to the reasonableness of such assumptions or the likelihood that such assumptions will coincide with actual events and this information should not be relied upon for that purpose. Changes in such assumptions could produce materially different results. Past performance is not a guarantee or indication of future results, and no representation or warranty, express or implied, is made regarding future performance of any security mentioned in this publication. Cornerstone accepts no liability for any loss (whether direct, indirect or consequential) occasioned to any person acting or refraining from action as a result of any material contained in or derived from this publication, except to the extent (but only to the extent) that such liability may not be waived, modified or limited under applicable law. This publication may provide addresses of, or contain hyperlinks to, Internet websites. Cornerstone has not reviewed the linked Internet website of any third party and takes no responsibility for the contents thereof. Each such address or hyperlink is provided solely for your convenience and information, and the content of linked third party websites is not in any way incorporated herein. Recipients who choose to access such third-party websites or follow such hyperlinks do so at their own risk.