Great Plains Energy (NYSE: GXP)

1. Kansas City CFA Research Challenge February 26, 2011 Great Plains Energy(NYSE: GXP) Future Has Attractive Potential; Timing Not Optimal

2. Great Plains Summary Statistics GXP vs. NYSE 500 NYSE 500 +3.0% GXP (9.0%) Comparables: Empire District (EDE), Westar Energy (WR), Alliant Energy (LNT), & Pinnacle West (PNW)

3. Investment Thesis • Pending Rate Cases Cause Regulatory Lag and Concern • Future Capital Spending May be Slowed by Inadequate Returns • GXP Faces Difficulty Standing up to Comparables • Trading at 3% premium to comparable medium FY12 TEV/EBITDA • Lower yield (4.2% vs. 4.9%) makes comparables more attractive

4. Company Overview • GXP is a holding company for Kansas City Power & Light (KCP&L) and KCP&L Greater Missouri Operations (GMO) • Fully regulated utility operating in the Midwest • Engages in generation, transmission, distribution, & sale of electricity to over 820,000 customers GXP MWh Capacity by Customer GMO Acquisition

5. Kansas City CFA Research Challenge February 26, 2011 Industry Overview • State commissions oversee regulated utilities • Determine retail rates utilities can charge customers via rate cases • 38% of US generating capacity & 71% of final consumers are owned by 210 investor-owned utilities • KCP&L Missouri & GMO regulated by the MPSC, while KCP&L Kansas is regulated by the KCC • GDP growth will drive electricity demand • Regulated status means no competition in GXP’s service territories Annual GDP Growth

6. Pending Rate Case Cause for Concern • GXP has outstanding requests with the MPSC for $190MM in revenue increases for its Iatan 1 & 2 projects • We estimate the MPSC will only authorize ~65-70% of the $190MM of revenue increases due to cost overruns • KCP&L only received 39.6% of requested revenue increases by KCC for its Iatan 1 & Iatan 2 projects Rate Case Capital Spending Comparables Financial Analysis

7. Staff’s Feedback Negative Rate Case Capital Spending Comparables Financial Analysis • Staff proposed a $7M annual increase compared to requested amount of $92M for KCP&L Missouri • Staff proposed a $36M annual increase compared to $98M for GMO • Staff recommended Iatan 1 & 2 cost disallowances of $102MM for GXP

8. Downside Risk Exists, Not Probable • Commission not likely to be as harsh as Staff • Only 46% of requested increase is made up of costs from Iatan 1 & 2 • Commission likely to grant revenue increases within our forecasted range Revenue Increases by Request Rate Case Capital Spending Comparables Financial Analysis

9. CEP Rate Case CEP Rate Case Outcomes $190M $190M $133M $50.9M $43M $21.8M 39.6% 22.6% 65-70% 39.6% 22.6% 70% Rate Case Capital Spending Comparables Financial Analysis

10. Future Capital Spending Slowed by Inadequate Returns • Rate Base Growth Dependent Upon Capital Expenditures • Sustainable Resource Strategy • Environmental Retrofits • GMO 345kV Transmission line (Cost of $380MM) • KCP&L 345kV Transmission line ($54MM) • GXP trading at 0.9x book value with no near-term catalysts to cause price appreciation • GXP will have to take on more debt (~$1Bn credit facility) or participate in a dilutive offering • Results in lower returns on capital expenditures due to lower debt/equity ratio Rate Base CapitalSpending Comparables Financial Analysis

11. GXP Faces Difficulty Standing up to Comparables Rate Base Capital Spending Comparables Financial Analysis

12. GXP Faces Difficulty Standing up to Comparables Rate Base Capital Spending Comparables Financial Analysis

13. Westar (WR) Looks Better • WR is best comparable given similar geographic region (KS) and regulation (KCC) • WR currently operates with an environmental rider, and a Fuel Adjustment Clause (FAC) in all of its operating territories • WR currently has better operating and profit margins, as well as a higher dividend yield GXP vs. WR Rate Base Capital Spending Comparables Financial Analysis

14. Financial Analysis • Tough 2011 • Favorable ’10 weather and Missouri lag • Rebounding 2012 • 1st full year of CEP in rate base Annual Forecast Rate Base Capital Spending Comparables Financial Analysis

15. Environmental Retrofits Rate Base Capital Spending Comparables Financial Analysis • Assuming GXP initiates another round of capital expenditures in FY12 as part of its SRS • Attempt to get in rate base by 2013 • Montrose, Sibley, & Lake Road are prime candidates for environmental retrofits

16. Unattractive Current Dividend Prospects • After 10 years of flat dividend, dividend cut in half in 2009 to $0.83 • SRS and transmission construction projects hamper near term dividend increase prospects till 2014 • Current dividend yield lagging behind comparables Dividend Yield Median = 4.9% Rate Base Capital Spending Comparables Financial Analysis

17. Valuation • $20 price objective based on 6.8x our FY12 EBITDA of $914M • Price objective supported by DCF and DDM

18. Risks to Investment Thesis • Pending rate case resolution • GXP could receive greater than 65-70% in MO rate case • Stock price appreciates above book value • Could issue equity in non-dilutive manner • Increases in rate base allows for increased dividend • GXP could raise dividend back to $1.66 • Higher government bond yields • Results in fund flows out of utilities

19. Conclusion • Pending Rate Cases Cause Regulatory Lag and Concern • Future Capital Spending May be Slowed by Inadequate Returns • GXP Faces Difficulty Standing up to Comparables • Trading at 3% premium to comparable medium FY12 TEV/EBITDA • Lower yield (4.2% vs. 4.9%) makes comparables more attractive

20. Appendix • Balance Sheet • Statement of Cash Flow • Revenue Build • DCF Valuation • Comparable Justification

21. Balance Sheet • Asset Growth to correlate with rate base expansion • Total Debt/Equity to remain constant Appendix

22. Statement of Cash Flow • Refinance Debt in 2011 • Diluted equity offering in FY12 Appendix

23. Revenue Build Appendix

24. DCF Valuation Appendix

25. Comparable Justification • Similar Geographic Areas, Generation Mix, & Electric Revenues by Customer Appendix