Tag Archives: contracts

Targa Resources’ (TRGP) CEO Joe Bob Perkins on Q1 2016 Results – Earnings Call Transcript

Targa Resources Corp. (NYSE: TRGP ) Q1 2016 Earnings Conference Call April 29, 2016 10:30 AM ET Executives Chris McEwan – VP & Treasurer Joe Bob Perkins – CEO Matthew Meloy – CFO Analysts Brandon Blossman – Tudor, Pickering, Holt Darren Horowitz – Raymond James TJ Schultz – RBC Capital Markets Faisel Khan – Citigroup Jeff Birnbaum – Wunderlich Jarren Holder – Goldman Sachs Chris Sighinolfi – Jefferies John Edwards – Credit Suisse Sunil Sibal – Seaport Global Securities Helen Ryoo – Barclays Operator Good day ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Targa Resources First Quarter 2016 Earnings Webcast. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. Later, we will conduct a question-and-answer session and instructions will follow at that time. [Operator Instructions] As a reminder this conference is being recorded. I would now like to introduce your host for today’s conference, Mr. Chris McEwan, Vice President and Treasurer. Sir, you may begin. Chris McEwan Thank you, Crystal. I’d like to welcome everyone to our first quarter 2016 investor call for Targa Resources Corp. Before we get started I’d like to mention that Targa Resources Corp., Targa TRC or the company has published its earnings release which is available on our website, www.targaresources.com. We will also be posting an updated investor presentation to the website later today. I would also like to remind you that on February 17, Targa Resources Corp closed its acquisition of all the outstanding public common units of Targa Resources Partners LP, TRP, that it did not already own. So on this call we will be discussing results as one entity, Targa Resources Corp. Please note that we will occasionally refer to the term GPL to refer to Targa Pipeline, the rename of former Atlas assets because our reported financial show comparisons back to Q1 of 2015 when we owned GPL for one month. Any statements made during this call that might include the company’s expectations or predictions should be considered forward-looking statements and are covered by the Safe Harbor Provision of the Securities Acts of 1933 and 1934. Please note that actual results could differ materially from those projected in any forward-looking statements. For a discussion of factors that could cause actual results to differ, please refer to our SEC filings, including the company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015 and Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q. Joe Bob Perkins, Chief Executive Officer; and Matt Meloy, Chief Financial Officer; will be our speakers today. Other members of the management team are available to assist in the Q&A session. With that, I’ll turn the call over to Joe Bob Perkins. Joe Bob Perkins Thanks, Chris. Good morning. And thanks to everyone for participating. Does not seem that long ago that we were reporting fourth quarter results. But a lot has changed and the short two months since the last call for Targa and for the entire energy industry. For Targa, we hosted our fourth quarter call shortly after closing the buy-in of the MLP. And also shortly after announcing the $500 million preferred private placement. Since then we announced that we upsized the private placement and had raised an attractive $1 billion of capital, in total, that we used reduce indebtedness. We also just completed the first quarter that we are proud off. With continued strong commercial and operational performance, and focus on savings, that resulted in adjusted EBITDA of $265 million and 1.2x dividend coverage. More broadly, let’s discuss the commodity, equity and debt market volatility that we have seen through the first four months of this year. Since early first quarter lows, and based on yesterdays close, crude prices have rallied more than 75%. NGL prices have increased more than 55%, and natural gas prices have increased about 10%. However, the uncertainties for our industry remain high. Significant price uncertainty remains. And since our last earnings call, just a couple of months ago, the domestic land rig count has continued to decrease from 489 to 405. And as audience on this call today undoubtedly knows, EMP companies are still figuring out what they will do for the rest of the year. We are trying to stay close to our EMP customers but they do not really have much new information to share with since this time two months ago, when we told you they were still reeling from there instances where crude had dipped below $30 a barrel. Just as the commodity prices improved, so have the capital markets improved over the last two months since our last call. Again, based on yesterdays close, the Alerian MLP Index went from 244 to almost 300, reflecting an improving outlook for the broad MLP sector, and for the midstream industry even though Targa is no longer in the index. And Targa’s common stock price went from $22.13 to yesterday’s close of $38.71. At the same time, our senior notes went from trading in the 70s to trading at about par. Of course these improved levels are a good thing from our perspective, and from our perspective it’s been a welcome change to see the commodity and capital market recently versus the first quarter lows. But as I said, there continues to be uncertainty for entire industry. All of the significant next steps that we have taken since the commodity prices started to fall in November 2014, position Targa to be successful and almost any environment. Those steps of course include our reduced CapEx spending, our significantly OpEx and G&A uncertainties, we have positioned Targa to succeed in almost any environment and we will continue to work to improve that position. Turning now to our first quarter results. We reported first quarter adjusted EBITDA of $265 million, modestly higher than last year’s reported adjusted EBITDA which included only one month of TPO volume and margins. Year-over-year headwinds resulted from reduced commodity prices and challenging market conditions. Our logistics and marketing segment produced quarterly reported operating margin of $157 million versus $191 million for the previous year. Lower as a result of the partial recognition last year, the renegotiated commercial arrangement related to our crude and condensate splitter project with Noble, lower fractionation margin, and lower export margin. We reported approximately 5.5 million barrels per month of LPGs for the first quarter of this year, which positions us well to meet or exceed our previous stated expectation of at least 5 million barrels per month for 2016. LPG exports have been particularly popular investor topic over the last month or so. As more bullish domestic NGL price sentiment has begun to emerge, and the potential impact on domestic propane supplying exports has been hotly [ph] discussed. While Mount Belvieu LPG prices are obviously key drivers for export demand, a number of other important variables must also be considered including global LPG demand, global LPG prices, particularly, in the Middle East, where LPG supply is declining. Global shipping rates, local global shipping rates, locational advantages of U.S. Gulf Coast supply, especially for the Americas market, and infrastructure growth throughout the world. Commercially the pace of dialogue around long-term contracts is picking up. Perhaps largely as a result of market perception that shipping rates are bottoming out. As evidenced by the large majority of ships leaving from Targa’s facility and staying in the Western hemisphere, Targa has advantage in exporting LPGs to Latin America, South America, and the Caribbean. And those markets tend to be priced on U.S. LPG prices. Our facility has proven customer flexibility due to our multiple docs with service of variety of vessel sizes and with simultaneously low propane and butane products. These attributes are valued by existing and potential new customers. Another recent topic of interest is ethylene exports. Targa does not currently export ethylene, and we only provide ethylene loading or unloading services for one customer. We have an arrangement with CP Chem whereby we operate assets owned by CP Chem at our Galena Park facility, and CP Chem exports ethylene from one of our docks. Targa receives a fee in exchange for operating the assets and providing access. While perhaps well positioned, we do not currently have any plans for expansion of our ethylene services. Moving to field GMP, for field GMP which is now subdivided as Permian, Central and Badlands, we expect average 2016 natural gas volumes to be about flat versus average 2015 natural gas volumes. For natural gas we continue to expect Permian natural gas volumes to be up year-over-year, offset by declines in the Central, with Badlands also about flat. We also expect that Badlands crude volumes will be about flat for 2016 versus 2015. Distributable cash flow for the quarter was $180 million, and quarterly dividend coverage was approximately 1.2x. Based on our first quarter declared dividend of $0.91 per common share, a $3.64 on an annual basis. This was the second consecutive quarter where we maintained Targa’s quarterly dividend at $0.91 per common share. And our rational for our recommendation to the Board this quarter was very similar to the last quarter. From our perspective, we have taken some very important steps to strengthen Targa and those steps mean that we have the luxury to be able to continue to monitor commodity and financial markets, the actions of our customers, and the actions of our competitors just as it didn’t make sense last quarter, growing their quarterly dividend this quarter in the face of continued uncertainty. Also didn’t make sense to management or to our Board. Similarly, making a rash decision to meaningfully change our quarterly dividend didn’t feel appropriate to us or the Board. Consistent with how we always approach quarterly dividend declarations, our ongoing analysis involves multiple commodity price and volume scenarios within a multi-year framework. We decided to stay flat. We have recently seen a number of midstream companies, to resize their payouts and that trend may continue. For Targa, we will continue to assess the environment and opportunities in front of us. And will continue to examine our place in the world as a midstream seacorp [ph]. Remember, the target is a midstream seacorp that does not currently pay taxes and is not expected to pay taxes for the near and medium term. We have time to be patient and thoughtful with our first priority obviously being the health of our balance sheet. That will wrap up my initial comments and I’ll hand it over to Matt. Matthew Meloy Thanks, Joe Bob. I’d like to add my welcome and thank you for joining our call today. Before we turn to discussing our first quarter results in more detail, I would like to describe some changes that we made to our reporting which you may have noticed in our press release this morning. We now report our results in towards segments; gathering and processing, and logistics and marketing. As Targa has increased its scale, geographic presence and diversification of operations, we have re-evaluated our financial reporting segmentations and believe that these two segment convention is more appropriate. Gathering and processing now includes both our field G&P business units and our G&P business. Our logistics and marketing segment, which we also refer to as downstream, includes both the former logistics asset and marketing and distribution segments. We will continue to provide some operational information at the business level or group business unit level. Within the gathering and processing segment, we are continuing to report the same individual system operating results. You will notice that we added some logical groping. SAOU, West Sand hills and Bersato [ph], are collectively described as Permian, and collectively I believe they represent the best position Permian, gathering and processing business in the industry. We have completed initial interconnections of SAOU, West and Sand hills improving our capabilities to operate efficiently and provide our producer customers with flexibility. Our operations personal have also realigned responsibilities across these three business units to improve efficiencies and service for our customers. South Texas, North Texas, South Stoke and West Stoke are collectively described as Central, and Badland and Coastal remain as standalone reporting systems; and the aggregate Permian, Central and Badlands will continue to be characterized as field gathering and processing. For downstream, we collapsed logistic asset and marketing and distribution into one reporting segment which we believe should be helpful. For example; on the previous state we had export margin split across the reporting segments. Now turning to quarterly results; as mentioned, reported adjusted EBITDA for the quarter was $265 million, compared to $258 million for the same time period last year. The modest increase was driven by the addition of TPL volumes and margins offset by lower commodity prices, lower fractionation and export margins, and by the partial recognition last year or our renegotiated commercial arrangements related to our crude and condensate splitter project with noble. Overall, reported operating margin was approximately flat for the first quarter compared to the first quarter of last year. Reported net maintenance capital expenditures were $13 million in the first quarter of 2016 compared to $19 million in the first quarter of 2015. Turning to the segment level, I’ll summarize the first quarter’s performance on a year-over-year basis starting with the downstream segment. First quarter operating margin decreased 18% compared to the first quarter of 2015 as a result of the partial recognition in ’15, the renegotiated commercial arrangements related to our splitter project with noble, lower fractionation margins and lower export margins. As Joe Bob mentioned, we loaded an average of 5.5 million barrels per month of LPG exports for the quarter compared to 5.8 million barrels per month during the first quarter of 2015. Fractionation volumes decreased by 13% in the first quarter of 2016 versus same time period last year. As a result of lower supply volumes in Mont Belvieu and some contract roll-offs in 2015, none of which has occurred thus far in the first quarter of 2016. Related to future contract rollovers, we want to reiterate what we said last quarter which is that over the next three years, less than 5% of progress fractionation contracts expire and less than 10% expire over the next five years. Logistics and marketing segment reported operating expenses decreased by 3% in the first quarter of 2016 versus the same time period last year as a result of both continued cost saving efforts and lower fuel and power cost. Now turning to the gathering and processing segment. Reported operating margin increased by 33% compared to last year, primarily because last year’s results include only one month of volumes and margins from TPL operations versus a full quarter contribution this year, plus a full quarter of operations of our Little Missouri 3 natural gas processing plant in the Badlands which came online in the first quarter of 2015. First quarter reported 2016 natural gas inlet volumes for field, gathering and processing were a little bit 2.5 billion cubic feet per day. For the gathering and processing segment, condensate prices were 37% lower, natural gas prices were 34% lower and NGL prices were 29% lower compared to the first quarter of 2015. Crude oil gathered increased to 105 barrels per day in the first quarter, a 4% increase versus the same time period last year. Quarter-over-quarter Badlands crude oil volumes were down about 3%, largely a result of producers shutting in existing production to frac new wells or for work overs. And as Joe Bob mentioned, we expect volumes to be flat versus – for 2016 versus average 2015. Related to operating expenses we continue to focus on cost reductions across all of our assets excluding the additional operating expenses from the TPL acquisition and system expansion, most areas were significantly lower than last year due to a focused cost reduction effort. In the fourth quarter of 2015, we benefited from some one-time reported reductions to OpEx but through our continued cost reduction efforts. Efforts, we were able to replicate a similar OpEx number for the first quarter. Let’s now move to capital structure and liquidity. On March 16 we announced that we closed on the sale of approximately $1 billion of 9.5% Series A issuing 965,100 newly authorized shares of Series A preferred stock and also issuing 13.55 million warrants with a strike price of $18.88 per common share, and 6.5 million warrants with a strike price of $25.11 per common share. The proceeds were used to reduce overall indebtedness at Targa, and importantly positions us in a time of opportunity to be able to execute on impactful projects. As of March 31, we had no borrowings under TRP’s $1.6 billion senior secured revolving credit facility due October 2017. With outstanding letters of credit of $12 million, availability at quarter end was approximately $1.6 billion. At quarter-end we had borrowings of $150 million under our accounts receivable securitization facility. On a debt compliance basis, TRPs leverage ratio at the end of the first quarter was approximately 3.5x versus a compliance covenant of 5.5x. As of March 31, TRC had $275 million in borrowings, outstanding under its $670 million senior secured credit facility that matures in February 2020. In the balance on TRC’s term loan facility that matures in February 2022 was $160 million. We mentioned this on our last earnings call and have provided detail on our leverage picture and our investor presentations but I also want to reiterate that there is no maintenance covenant related to consolidated leverage in our credit facilities. Our fee-based operating margin for the first quarter of 2016 was 77%, and we continue to expect operating margin to be more than 70% fee-based during 2016. Turning to hedges for non-fee based operating margin relative to the partnerships current estimate of equity volumes from field, gathering and processing. We estimate we have hedged approximately 50% of remaining 2016 natural gas, 50% of remaining 2016 condensate, and approximately 20% of remaining 2016 NGL volumes. For 2017 we estimate we have hedged approximately 35% of natural gas, 35% of condensate and approximately 10% of NGL volumes. Moving on to capital spending, we estimate $525 million or less for net growth capital expenditures in 2016, $110 million of net maintenance capital expenditures for the year. As it relates to taxes, our expectation is that Targa will not be paying cash taxes for at least five years as we benefit from depreciation associated with a step up in basis from the Atlas mergers and the buying of TRP; and it’s our expectation that Targa dividends for 2016 will likely be classified as a return of capital, possibly as much as 100% return of capital. That concludes my review and I will now turn the call back over to Joe Bob. Joe Bob Perkins Thank you, Matt. I will now provide some additional color related to growth capital projects and then we’ll wrap it up so that we can have some Q&A. First, our primary 2016 growth capital projects, once listed in our recent investor presentations are proceeding well. Downstream, Train5 is in startup mode at this time consistent with our original timeline, and expect Train5 to be fully operational by the end of the second quarter. As mentioned previously, Train5 was underwritten by our own needs for additional fractionation capacity based on projected equity volume growth from our field GMP operations. And we expect that Train5 will fill up more slowly than initially expected. We recently executed an EPC contract for our crude and condensate splitter project at channel views terminal, and now expect total growth CapEx for the project to be approximately $140 million. The splitter will likely be operational in the first quarter of 2018. Our gathering and processing segment, our 200 million cubic feet a day Buffalo plant in West Tex is also in the final stages of startup, providing much needed processing capacity and increasing system reliability and operational flexibility. We expect it to be fully operational within the next couple of weeks. As part of our joint venture with Sanchez Energy in South Texas, we also completed the Carnero pipeline in March which facilitated the first quarter volume growth that we saw in South Texas. As volumes from Sanchez Energy flowed from the Carnero pipeline to Targa’s existing Silver Oak facilities. Volumes in South Texas increased by about 25% in the first quarter versus the fourth quarter to more than 175 million cubic feet per day, as we received additional volumes from Sanchez earlier than we originally expected. We expect that volumes will continue to increase over 2016. Construction on the joint ventures new 200 million cubic feet per day raptor plant in SAOU County is underway, and we expect it will be operational during the first quarter of 2017. When we announced our joint venture with Sanchez in October 2015, we announced that Sanchez was underwriting the joint venture projects with a minimum volume commitment of 125 million cubic feet per day that begins in the first quarter of 2017 and lasts for five years. This is the only material non-investment grade, minimum volume commitment across our gathering and processing footprint. Using that as a segue to another important topic on investors’ minds, we continue to closely monitor our customer credit exposures on a customer-by-customer and contract-by-contract basis. Of course we are operating on high alert related to customer credit exposure and continue to believe that we are well positioned to manage the risks associated with potential counter party, default or bankruptcy. We will continue to stress our forecast, stress our analysis with full consideration to credit risk and a lower commodity price environments just as we constantly try to assess the volume implications of those same prices scenarios. Over the first four months of this year, there have been some announced bankruptcies, rating agency downgrades, and other material E&P announcement. But for Targa, none of the announced situations has had or is expected to have a significant impact on us. Moving onto some closing remarks. I continue to be incredibly proud of our employees and our accomplishments through challenging times. Our finance team, with help from many other parts of the company raised $1 billion of capital through a preferred plus warrant structure that they designed with a fundamental view that Targa was undervalued and that there were investors that would partner with Targa sharing that same fundamental view which will allow us to raise attractive capital. It did, and we welcome those investors. Our engineering and operations team have continued to identify and share best practices to reduce cost and manage dollar spend without sacrificing safety or the integrity of our assets. Our commercial teams have also continued to identify and share best practices related to contract renegotiations and additional opportunities across and between the businesses. And as expected, despite uncertainties we are continuing to work on attractive potential projects across all of our business areas, leveraging our strengths and our positioning and demanding attractive returns. Every employee at Targa has had a hand in responding to the challenges of this energy cycle and trying to rise to the occasion in their own way, in their own role, to position Targa for success. We kept collaboration that I’ve seen throughout the company has resulted in better bottom line results than expected, and has better positioned Targa for the future. In the face of uncertainty, those employees have demonstrated a focus and resiliency at all levels of the company and it makes me proud. And I would like to take the opportunity to thank each and every one of our employees for their continued efforts. So with that, we’ll open it up to questions. I’ll turn it back to you operator. Question-and-Answer Session Operator Thank you. [Operator Instructions] And our first question comes from Brandon Blossman from Tudor, Pickering, Holt and Company. Your line is now open. Brandon Blossman Good morning, everyone. Good morning, Joe Bob. I’ll take it off LPG question, probably at top of everybody’s mind as pointed out. In a world that may have increasing demand globally and decreasing supply, probably globally and in the U.S. How do your terminals fare and what is that look like on the ground in terms of contracting both contract roles and reconstructing those historic rates? Joe Bob Perkins Thanks for the question, Brandon. Adding some color to our carefully prepared remarks. We will good about our position, you’re asking about our position in that global market. The supply demand variables that I talked about, Targa is well positioned for Gulf Coast propane and butane supply. And we think that Targa and a very few others, well positioned in that market, are well positioned for the global economy. You will see in our investor presentation that over the last 12 months, three quarters of our LPGs are going to Latin America, South America and the Caribbean. That’s driven by factors different than some of the variables that people spend a lot of time looking at. We feel good about that for the near-term and the longer term, forget about our position of Mont Belvieu related LPGs and our natural share of that. Brandon Blossman Fair enough. Any thoughts about where current spot rates are for lower LPG terminals? Joe Bob Perkins It’s a dynamic market. We said publicly in the last call that spot rates were certainly lower than the spot post rates enjoyed couple of years ago. I think other people on recent calls have made the same comment but they are not unattractive and the product, services, flexibility that we’re providing our have continued interest or sport but also can turn you interest for term contracting. Brandon Blossman All right, switching topic, that looks like you time to death buybacks very nicely here. What’s the expectation on a go-forward basis, was this opportunistic or is there something structural going here? Joe Bob Perkins With the $1 billion proceeds we received, it just made sense for us to go out and repurchase our notes, that’s more attractive than just paying down revolver and we ran out of revolver capacity. So, it made sense for us to do that. We also had the $1.1 billion maturity out there in January 2018, so we wanted to just begin repaying that to reduce that size down. We’ve started doing that really late last year through the first quarter and we’ve actually continued doing some of that in April this year, too. We’ve repaid and you’ll see it in the press release, repurchased another $96 million post-quarter end of those notes and the balance on that $1.1 billion is now about $840 million. So we feel good about where we are. Brandon Blossman Okay. And we’ll just see what happens going forward? Matthew Meloy Yes. That’s right. Brandon Blossman All right. Thank you, guys. Matthew Meloy Thanks, Brian. Joe Bob Perkins Thank you. Operator Thank you. Our next question comes from Darren Horowitz from Raymond James. Your line is now open. Darren Horowitz Good morning, Joe Bob. My first question: within the comments that you made around the fuel GMP volumes – and I recognize as you said that as you said, that customers don’t have any much more to tell you relative to what they told you a few months ago – but if we look across the forward curve and just for a second think the commodity prices materialized, consistent with that outlines, if you think about the different drivers within fuel GMP, where do you think there could be a bit more volume upside? Is it specifically within west sectors around the Permian, around Versado, or across the Midland system, or do you think maybe the magnitude of Central and Badlands’ volume declined just in a state? Joe Bob Perkins It is a good question brand and I obviously felt better about the forward curve today than we did two months ago. It is a – and it really was just two months ago. We had our last earnings call. That always surprises me in the first part of the year. Customers are looking at those forward curves. They know their economics very well. It wouldn’t surprise me if this is being mocked in per customers for future drilling. That happened about maybe two months later this time last year and I shouldn’t be speaking for those producers, but we’ve tried to stay in very close contact with them. You asked about where there may be more upside based on today’s forward curve and I would add – or based on some positive movement of the forward curve in the near future? Yes, Permian Basin has some very sweet spots in it and we are across some of those sweet spots. Probably it would see the most activity increase around the West Texas system as well as further west around Versado, that core Delaware. It’s a sweet spot. Secondly, you pointed to the Badlands? Makes a significant difference. If you can get that forward curve, we’re a little bit better and how they’ll feel about their activity; and then I guess I would go to the scoop. Across that spectrum, there are several places where there are some drilled and uncompleted wells which we may benefit from and additionally, what I like is how producers right now are high-grading into drilling dollars. Drilling close to their own assets which means close to ire’s. Upside can come without a whole lot of capital expenditures if it follows the pattern we would expect it to. Darren Horowitz Okay, I appreciate the color. My final question, if you could just – I love your thoughts with regard to recoveries, the theory that there’s going to be composidential [ph] barrel price improvement, specifically the FA market tightening opportunities for you guys. From a recovery perspective, certainly on if you will, the non-fee based business, what could be the potential for uplifting the back half of this year in terms of POL and POP contract exposure? Joe Bob Perkins I think it’s a question of when, not if you get price recovery. Did pretty bad on the winds in my career. All of the factors that are well-discussed, we agree with, we try to model as well. You described towards the end of the year? I don’t know the timing. It could be then. It certainly has to occur sometime after them, it’s just that they’re not dynamics of supply and demand and the help that we’ll get from exports. Darren Horowitz Thank you. Joe Bob Perkins You’re welcome. Thanks, Darren. Operator Thank you. Our next question comes from TJ Schultz from RBC Capital Markets. Your line is now open. Joe Bob Perkins Good morning, TJ. TJ Schultz Good morning. Thanks. I guess as far as the move in commodity and your improved cost to capital and balance sheet obviously, is any of that accelerated discussions on projects in your longer term backlog, both as we think about what could potentially be higher in the 2016 bucket above that 525 and then as you think about moving to approval for projects a bit further down the road? Joe Bob Perkins I hear you, TJ. It has been a pretty good movement in the last two months on commodity prices and our equity price on improved cost to capital. We’re taking a longer term view on our cost to capital. We took that long return view and we preferred. Our project development continues in not just projects that we talked about in the past. I did say and I said it intentionally because I’m proud of the efforts. Across our business areas, call them small projects and larger projects. Not [ph] will be up there on that Nelson project page. Our businesses are working that pipeline. They’re working it based on leveraging our asset position, leveraging the strong position we have relative to our financial ability to execute, but also demanding attractive returns. It’s just necessary. Because of the uncertainties, we want to make sure that we’re getting large bang for our buck and that it has attractive spread over a longer term view of cost to capital that includes the fact that we put billion dollars on our balance sheet of that prefer. The good news is, those projects and opportunities exist. It’s kind of a timing issue, customer uncertainties et cetera, but we’re working on the pipeline. TJ Schultz Okay, thanks. And then I guess in that vein, you touched on ethylene exports. No plans now, you self-familiar are well-positioned. Is that something you may consider down the road as a potential project? Joe Bob Perkins Certainly. Actually the reason for putting the comment out there is we’ve gotten the question so many times. I wanted to clarify the facts. We don’t have it in investor presentations and certainly don’t like much about it because it’s not a big material portion of our business, but it is an important part of our relationship with CPC. That relationship is a one-company relationship right now. They have some assets, we have some assets that support that ethylene business. We did want to clarify that we don’t have a project currently planned. Your question is would we ever consider it? We consider everything. TJ Schultz Okay, makes sense. Just lastly to fall up on some of the volume discussion. If you could expand a little bit on South Texas, what you’re seeing there as you bring those same volumes into the system. It sounds like they came a little sooner and then the pipeline of March. Just your expectations to look at the run rate in the first quarter, kind of what we expect through 2016. Joe Bob Perkins Sure. First of all, the coming a little sooner is a specific shout out to the, congratulations, I’m giving all our employees for execution. We got it done sooner than we thought we’re going to. Congratulations to that team, but there are many efforts like that going on. Getting that done sooner brought the volumes to us sooner. Sanchez continues to be very, very good a drilling and completing those wells and we expect additional volumes. I do understand that the has ruled over for others and it’s not really a growth picture for others, but as we announced when we announced the project, that that does kind of make the tie for Targa better in South Texas. It doesn’t fix, but stand alone, it’s very attractive. Stand alone, it makes the system better with a plant on the west and a plant on the east, and we’re already flowing all the way from the west to the east now with Sanchez’ volumes. That’s all a good thing for the long term. TJ Schultz Okay, thank you. Matthew Meloy Thanks. Joe Bob Perkins Thank you. I appreciate it, TJ. Operator Thank you. Our next question comes from Faisel Khan from Citigroup. Your line is now open. Joe Bob Perkins Hi, Faisel. Faisel Khan Hey, thanks. Good morning. All right. I just want to ask a couple of questions. First off, with all the uncertainty that you talked about in the market, how are you looking at your dividend covered ratio? Is there a long term goal that you sort of envision in this sort of volatile commodity market that works for you, guys? Joe Bob Perkins Faisel, I don’t have an announced long term goal for the dividend covered ratio right now. Probably the best way to think about target is how we behaved in the past and that we’re working very hard to think about the future. I like our track record, I like the current covered ratio and we’re going to try to be thoughtful and continue to analyze what other companies are doing, what the investment community is saying and reflecting and what’s going on with our customers. Faisel Khan Okay, understood. Our prepared remarks, you discussed that there are long-term contracts for LPG export capacity being discussed again. Could you go a little bit more in-depth in what you mean by that? Is that our customers coming back to the table to discuss long term capacity, or is this just sort of… Joe Bob Perkins No. I believe either in the Q&A on the last earnings call, I just reflected the color that while counter-parties were interested at needs for a long-term LPGs two months ago, it appeared that they were waiting to figure out what was going to happen with shipping rates and shipping rates have been on a pretty significant trend. Depending on what shipping rates you’re looking at, that trend may have bottomed out. I don’t want to pretend to be the expert on that, but it may have bottomed out. With that, hey, if we’re not at the bottom, we’re close to the bottom, or we bottomed out sentiment coming from our contacts in the industry from existing and potential new customers, we’ve seen an increased interest to go ahead and do term deals again. They didn’t want to do that when they weren’t prepared to do the term shipping deals. Don’t mean to overstate that, but it is different today than it was two months ago – in dialog, in interest, in pace. Faisel Khan Okay, makes sense. And then one of the other prepared comments that you said is that you evaluate your place in the world as a sea corp. Can you go on to a little more depth by what do you mean by that? Clearly you’ve collapsed a structure, you’re more simplified now. Is there something that you’re contemplating with regards to structure? Joe Bob Perkins I think that also came out of – we’re not in the Alerian Index anymore – I pointed to the Alerian Index even though we’re not in it. We are a seacorp, we have tools to take care of our balance sheet and we want to take care of our balance sheet. However, seacorp doesn’t pay any taxes which makes a real difference for our investors. You heard Matt’s comments about what that return of capital treatment would look like for 2017. All of that factors into what we’re trying to deliver to our investors and how we’re trying to deliver it. That’s the color around my statement. Faisel Khan Okay, understood. I’m just trying to understand, are you happy being a Seacorp or do you want to be something else? Joe Bob Perkins Yes, we’re going to switch again. I’m very, very happy with the moves we made and how that positions us for the current environment and the range of environment that could occur over the next several years. It was very important. I may have misspoke on the year a little while ago and I apologize, I said 17 for the return of capital. Matt only described it for 2016. Now I’ve been distracted. Did I answer your questions? Faisel Khan You did, yes. Thank you. I think I’m all set. Operator Thank you. And our next question comes from Jeff Birnbaum from Wunderlich. Your line is now open. Jeff Birnbaum Good morning, everyone. Joe Bob Perkins Good morning. Jeff Birnbaum Here are just a couple of questions from me. One, just kind of bigger picture – you said you would and it sounds like you’ve added some more since the fourth quarter call. Just sort of big picture philosophically I guess in a sort of rollercoaster I have been on the last couple of years. I was wondering if you are thinking about hedging policy sort of any different going forward, then perhaps you have in the past? Joe Bob Perkins Yes, targets are give or take 75-ish percent or so year one, 50% year two and then 25-ish percent year 3 and then there are ranges around those. We did add some hedges here recently. We’re still well under those targets so as we’re adding some hedges, we’re not yet going out and adding to try and catch up to get to those target levels or exceed them, but adding those hedges are really more kind of keeping up with those targets to we don’t fall further behind. That really relates to the hedges that we put in place, so over really the fourth and the first quarter. Matthew Meloy And you asked for policy. I don’t mind describing thinking because it’s not a policy. Those are targets and goals we’ve had for a long time. The hedge committee of our board and a management are on the same page and that we do believe there’s more upside than downside on most of the commodities that we had and do not see us trying to catch up while that’s still the case. Keeping up is productive and that’s our current thinking. That thinking could change, but we don’t think about it differently than we thought about it over the entire history of Targa and we’ve got some experienced people helping the management team experience just to stay disciplined – watch it, track it, discuss it at least once a quarter. Joe Bob Perkins To add onto too, the hedges we’ve had been primarily on them say, I’m on a natural gas side of thing. For NGOs, you’re going to see we’re still well under our targets. Jeff Birnbaum Yes, and it all makes sense for me, quick, the potential exercise of the – I just wanted to ask how you are approaching that? Obviously, the stock prices had a very nice run here. I was just sort of wondering, is that something that you see likely when the owners have served the right to do that? Or are you thinking about your capital deployment leverage – things like that, all with that timing in mind? Joe Bob Perkins Sure. It is our option to settle those warranty there in cash or net settle them in shares. So it is our option. They cannot be exercised for six months, so there are still some time before those could even be exercised. Good question on when they’ll be exercised. Those are seven year warrants, so it will be up to those individual holders whether they decide they want to go ahead and exercise, or if they want to keep the time value. Good question, but we can always net settle in shares, so if we didn’t want to pay cash, we didn’t want to add leverage to the balance sheet, we could just net settle it. Jeff Birnbaum Okay. Perfect. Thanks, man. And then just a real last one for me. Liquidity is pretty strong here. I was just kind of curious – Joe Bob, you touched on sort of how you’re thinking about pursuing new projects and things like that. I thought I’d ask just a question on MNA that doesn’t get new member. Are you still out there interested in additional assets? Are you seeing any changes in the [ph] disimprovement in liquid’s prices or perhaps sellers taking in a bit more? Joe Bob Perkins It has only been a couple of months since I commented. I don’t think it has changed a lot today versus a couple of months ago. We will still look. Just as we’re being very disciplined around the organic projects, one business area at a time, making sure we get attractive returns and the way we do that, it’s leveraging our assets, leveraging our position an acquisition that would really get on our radar scope, we’d need to look the same way. Leveraging our assets, leveraging our position. We’re spending almost no time looking at the opportunity to increase foot prints. It’s just not that time for us right now. Jeff Birnbaum Okay. Thanks a lot, guys. Congrats on the quarter. Matthew Meloy Thanks. Operator Thank you. Our next question comes from Jarren Holder form Goldman Sachs. Your line is now open. Jarren Holder Hi, good morning. I just want to start off, how sensitive it is Latin American or Caribbean demand for U.S. LPG exports in your view to higher U.S. Prices? Joe Bob Perkins It has been a short history, but it hasn’t been very sensitive based on U.S. pricing today. It’s a demand that needs to be met, it’s being met from obviously a very close source of supply and not that we are transacting with the customers in those markets, but it’s our sense from our customers that that’s based on U.S. LPG pricing. That removes some of that sensitivity. That’s probably not the best color I have to and we certainly will see over the next year or two what that’s going to be because we’ve had prices move all over the place, all over tax. We were still shipping. Our percentage share increased over the last 12 months in the price environment that you saw. We feel good about it, we feel good about our position and our mix of existing customers and the opportunity with potential new customers. Jarren Holder Thanks. And how do you think about recontracting risks just given that there is increasing competition from other U.S. LPG facilities? Joe Bob Perkins The competition we feel the most are the ones who have been there for a while. That competition should sort of become a natural market share around the butane and propane that float through the systems facility further away trying to get propane or butanes from Mont Belvieu. It’s not particularly advantage for doing that, so I probably don’t worry about that competition this much and we try to be very competitive and pretty discreet on how we’re working with our customers and potential customers here in this market. Jarren Holder Great. Thank you. Matthew Meloy Okay, thanks. Operator Thank you. Our next question comes from Chris Sighinolfi from Jefferies. Your line is now open. Joe Bob Perkins Good morning, Chris. Chris Sighinolfi Hey, Joe Bob. How are you guys doing? Matthew Meloy Good. Good morning. Chris Sighinolfi Thanks for taking my question. I just wanted to I guess first circle up on that if I could? It seemed like a slight little decline in volume both on a quarterly basis. I realized what you said in regard to that contract positions on those. So I was just wondering if that decline in volume was in that area, was it due to something specific? Or was it just a function of reduced fuel volumes falling that way? Joe Bob Perkins That’s a combination of all those things. It’s a reduced volume that’s flowing in from our volumes and others but there were some contract roll off late in 2015 which when you look, I kind of see in sequential quarter-to-quarter, we’ll see some difference from Q4 to Q1 happen in the fourth quarter. Chris Sighinolfi Okay. And your earlier point was from here, there’s very limited contract change over the next three years? Joe Bob Perkins Yes, that’s right. Chris Sighinolfi Okay. And then with regard to – I really appreciate the color in the prepared remarks or timeline for in service. I think you have mentioned, or Joe Bob mentioned that you’re expecting now a slightly lower ramp on that facility than original expectations. Could you remind us how much of that facility is contracted? Joe Bob Perkins It’s largely for our own needs and we haven’t described how much it would be for third parties. Into some extent, I recognized that it’s not one train at a time even though we can contract it that way. We had volumes in Louisiana that needed to be at Mount Belleview, not in Louisiana that will be back in train 5 for example. I think that’s all of the specifics we provided. But we’ve got them some space at Train5 if anyone is interested in contacting at the right term. Chris Sighinolfi Okay. I guess the final question for me, Joe Bob, you have addressed the volumes with CP Chem and I know you spoke to TJ about it in the Q&A, and I get that you’re not actively pursuing any expansion in that line of business right now. Maybe this is just a question born from my own ignorance, but what would have to happen to get you to move forward with something? I guess what I’m going is that there is a view out there that – as an LPG facility because that’s what you’ve been doing there. But to the extent that perhaps there would become some under-utilized capacity that you might be able to repurpose to an alternate use. How do I think about that decision tree? Joe Bob Perkins Well, I would say that first of all look at our history over multiple year with that facility. When we acquired it, we thought of Galena Park as an import facility doing a little bit of export of ethylene. We’re economic animals and we will try to respond to the needs of the market. Ethylene is an interesting equation, gotten a lot smarter over it recently trying to answer people’s questions and that will be driven by the PC Chem customers linked in that ethylene market in this area and how long that’s likely to continue. Are we purposing our facilities? It’s really a way to describe it because we would not have to cannibalize any of our existing facilities. We’ve got ways of getting a little bit more out of this, that and the other piece of equipment, and if we need one or two increase ethylene, would do so without repurposing. We could move more ethylene from that dock for example. We might add some refrigeration for ethylene so that it didn’t get in the way of propane or butane loading. Before we would repurpose anything, we want to make an additive. Chris Sighinolfi Okay. Joe Bob Perkins That’s not saying I’m doing a project, didn’t mean to imply that, but if CPC has a need, we’re going to try to fill it and if another counter-party believes that we can effectively service our ethylene needs, we may do that. Chris Sighinolfi Okay. So all you’re saying before is there is nothing active right now, but there is no active opposition to anything should there be a market need? Joe Bob Perkins Sometimes when I’m working on prepared remarks, I can be unclear. I was not trying to say opposition, I was just trying to get the facts out there for people. Chris Sighinolfi Right. And the clarification is helpful because I didn’t know if it was, okay, we’re going to do this and that’s going to make it less possible to do what has been the core function of that facility. It seems like from what you’ve just said, you can readily do both? Joe Bob Perkins Yes. Chris Sighinolfi Okay, got it. Well, thanks for that clarity. I appreciate the time and good luck. Joe Bob Perkins Okay. Thanks. Operator Thank you. Our next question comes from John Edwards from Credit Suisse. Your line is now open. Joe Bob Perkins Hey, John. John Edwards Yes, good morning, everybody. Just a couple house-keeping items. Maybe you’ve said this or I missed it, any change or what’s the EBITDA guidance now and then what’s the sensitivity now to commodity price changes? Matthew Meloy The commodity price changes, we’ll have that in our updated investor presentation, but I actually don’t think it was changed from our last. I think it’s a five – we the $0.05 NGL move, I think is about $25 million of EBITDA, but it will be in our investor presentation like for crude gas and NGLs. Joe Bob Perkins And we did update it. Matthew Meloy Yes, and we did update it. And then for EBITDA guidance, we have not provided or updated 2016 EBITDA guidance other than what was – just previous EBITDA numbers that are out there, forecast information that’s out there. So we have not provided new EBITDA guidance on its own. John Edwards Okay, no new guidance on that. And then I was just curious. Maybe it’s just a timing issue, but your maintenance capital drop quite a bit sequentially. Is that just the timing issue? I guess with the 110, you’re guiding to – we should be thinking about significantly higher numbers – as it’s going to spread pretty much equally across the quarters, or is there already seasonality embedded in that? Matthew Meloy The maintenance CapEx – as you go back and look, it could be pretty lumpy. Q1 does seem to be a bit lower than the other quarters and you look last year it was relatively, I think, low, too. I think 110 for the year is still a pretty good number. Could we come in a little bit lower? Sure, but I think it’s still probably a decent number. John Edwards Okay. Is that going to be relatively equally balanced though for the rest of the year, do you think? Matthew Meloy We usually spend more in Q4, but it will just depend on that activity as well. John Edwards Okay, that’s it for me. Thanks. Joe Bob Perkins Thanks, John. Operator Thank you and our next question comes from Sunil Sibal from Seaport Global Securities. Your line is now open. Sunil Sibal Yes, hi. Good morning, guys and congratulations from a good quarter. Couple of questions for me. Going back to your prepared comments regarding balance sheet, remaining a top priority of management team. Clearly, you made a lot of progress there and I was just wondering with the $2.1 billion of liquidity that you have, how should we be thinking about next liquidity. Joe Bob Perkins I think I got that. We want to have a lot of liquidity in this environment, in an uncertain environment. Whether or not the capital markets with a high-yield markets are open and shut, in the last six months I’ve got pretty much close and now they’re pretty open. So we want to operate with a lot of liquidity. We don’t necessarily think of that liquidity as a just usage to go out and buy things necessarily with it. We are focused on keeping liquidity and were also focused on a leverage ratio. So we want to keep our leverage ratio as strong as possible in this environment. So I view having that liquidity as providing additional flexibilities for CapEx and timing of when we raise additional capital but also for refinancing and taking care of our other debt obligations. Sunil Sibal Okay, that’s helpful. And then just one housekeeping for me. It seems like your past G&A has been understandably quite in the last couple of quarters. How should we be thinking of that now that on a go forward basis? Matthew Meloy Yes, the G&A has moved around a little bit over the last couple of quarters. Fourth quarter of last year it was kind of a catch-up for the remainder of the year relatively low. This quarter’s DNA is a better kind of indication of closer to a run rate number so I would focus more on the Q1 kind of G&A number than it would look at necessarily a fourth quarter. Sunil Sibal Okay, got it. That’s good. Thanks guys. Matthew Meloy Okay, thanks. Operator Thank you. Our next question comes from Bill McKenzie [ph] from Seaport Global. Your line is now open. Unidentified Analyst Hi guys, thanks. What are your competitors reported kind of attractive levels of LPG export volumes going to Asia. I know with your mix of Latin America South American gradient is a decent amount of seasonality. Are you seeing within that pretty percent other part of the world enough incremental volumes driven – given the shipping prices right now to offset some of the seasonality. Joe Bob Perkins There is some all use the term seasonality broadly. Not every month is the same. Based on our short history of exports so I understand what you are saying. With our published LTM will show that it is 75% Latin America Caribbean and South America for Targa now. We believe that there is sufficient business for that 75%. That’s why a quarter inch year attractively. And the 25% is also attractive. I mean people are looking at this over the long term and I just over the short term. That 75% share I’m reminded has been sued benefit from the Panama Canal which the sooner decide closer and closer you get to their best estimate of when it’s supposed to be complete the less they will be wrong about it. But it will soon be open. And it will make a difference or at least some of our customers believe it will make a difference. We like our position to that market. And we like the mix. Unidentified Analyst So if your nameplate Desha looking at the Q4 presentations on the website. 9 million barrels a month excuse me in operating 6.5 to 7. At what point given that the rest of the world given some long-term contracting do you have to evaluate the potential expansion. Matthew Meloy I know by saying this I’m going to be asked more and more for details the numbers on it but I’m not going to give them. We have improved our ability to operate that facility since we last put numbers out with creative and operationally experienced solutions to the bottleneck. Second ago we talked about the ability to continue to utilize our facilities without having to make choices about repurpose and something. And we will keep doing that. If there is additional demand for our assets we are to figure out how to squeeze more out of our assets. When I say we should take me out of the equation. It’s a bunch of talented engineers and operations folks. But I’m proud of that and I know that we will continue to get benefits from that kind of work. Unidentified Analyst So you’re basically, talking about squeezing instead of 75% of operating capacity on nameplate something in the 80s or better for less turnarounds or more efficient turnarounds or whatever, getting closer to that time? Matthew Meloy Those are examples of it. We also said we could do an ethylene project without really cannibalizing will be party doing or do in the future. We’ve got an ethane project that we could add to the facility without cannibalizing or reducing what we think we could do in the future on propane and butane’s. So it’s a very good facility and we try to think about the future for it. Unidentified Analyst All right. And then the fascination volumes, I know another better talk about decline had been at least for them have been impacted by planning opportunities. I assume you guys have seen the same thing. At what point the commodity price spectrum that this opportunities return to market. Joe Bob Perkins I think I know what you are referring to. Part of the margin was impacted by planning opportunities because you have less volume a different planning opportunities coming off the frac’s. Less planning opportunities hit us to but it doesn’t impact the front and volume going through the frac, just the profitability coming out of the frac. Unidentified Analyst Okay. All right. Thank you. Operator Thank you. Our next question comes from Vein [ph] from BMO Capital. Your line is now open. Unidentified Analyst Good morning. Most of my questions have been hit. I have one quick one. Joe Bob, you mentioned that you definitely see constructive ethylene fundamentals and that you guys are modeling that internally. Can you quantify the potential impact, positive impact, that you see from ethane reinjection to the gas stream? Joe Bob Perkins Our modeling has quantified that impact under multiple scenarios and I’m not going to provide a public a number of that plus I just don’t know what the right inputs are at this point. Unidentified Analyst Okay. That’s it for me. Thanks. Joe Bob Perkins Thank you. Operator Thank you. And our final question comes from Helen Ryoo from Barclays. Your line is now open. Helen Ryoo Good morning. Just a follow-up on the ethane recovery in missionary where we have to recover all the ethane given the tractor demand, trying to look – think about the upside to Targa, obviously the NGL the POP margins going to better but on your frac plans, the surplus capacity that exists today is that all economic upside if you were to fill all that capacity or are you currently collecting some NBC volumes on capacity that’s not being – Joe Bob Perkins We think that is pretty much upside, there may be some small NBC makeups but I think it would pretty much be upside to our volumes if we were to start recovering more and having more ethane going through our fractionators. Helen Ryoo And what about on the marketing side of the NGL downstream business, if NGL pricing shoots up driven solely by ethane does the marketing segment also benefit or is that more driven by propane and butane prices? Joe Bob Perkins Yes, there will be some benefit there as well. There will be some there as well. Helen Ryoo Okay. And then just lastly, your NGL production dropped a deeply and I was wonder if there was a one-time affect or if it reflects some changes in the wetness of gas there? Matthew Meloy We go in and out of recovery of those facilities based on economic benefit and some of our contractual requirements downstream in the facility. So you will see variation in those volumes throughout different quarters because of the contractual structure that we have at those facilities. Helen Ryoo Okay. So it is not something sort of a permanent level we will see going forward? Matthew Meloy No, nothing has changed as far as the gas quality coming into the plants. It will – the way the contracts work it will be intermittent. It won’t be throughout the quarters. We will have periods will we will have higher recovery that during other periods. Helen Ryoo Got it. All right, thank you very much. Joe Bob Perkins Thank you, operator. If anyone has follow-up questions, please feel free to contact Chris, Jen, Matt or any of us. We appreciate your interest this Friday. Operator Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for participating in today’s conference. This does conclude today’s program. You may all disconnect. And have a wonderful day. Copyright policy: All transcripts on this site are the copyright of Seeking Alpha. However, we view them as an important resource for bloggers and journalists, and are excited to contribute to the democratization of financial information on the Internet. (Until now investors have had to pay thousands of dollars in subscription fees for transcripts.) So our reproduction policy is as follows: You may quote up to 400 words of any transcript on the condition that you attribute the transcript to Seeking Alpha and either link to the original transcript or to www.SeekingAlpha.com. All other use is prohibited. THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HERE IS A TEXTUAL REPRESENTATION OF THE APPLICABLE COMPANY’S CONFERENCE CALL, CONFERENCE PRESENTATION OR OTHER AUDIO PRESENTATION, AND WHILE EFFORTS ARE MADE TO PROVIDE AN ACCURATE TRANSCRIPTION, THERE MAY BE MATERIAL ERRORS, OMISSIONS, OR INACCURACIES IN THE REPORTING OF THE SUBSTANCE OF THE AUDIO PRESENTATIONS. IN NO WAY DOES SEEKING ALPHA ASSUME ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY INVESTMENT OR OTHER DECISIONS MADE BASED UPON THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS WEB SITE OR IN ANY TRANSCRIPT. USERS ARE ADVISED TO REVIEW THE APPLICABLE COMPANY’S AUDIO PRESENTATION ITSELF AND THE APPLICABLE COMPANY’S SEC FILINGS BEFORE MAKING ANY INVESTMENT OR OTHER DECISIONS. If you have any additional questions about our online transcripts, please contact us at: transcripts@seekingalpha.com . Thank you!

FirstEnergy (FE) Charles E. Jones on Q1 2016 Results – Earnings Call Transcript

FirstEnergy Corp. (NYSE: FE ) Q1 2016 Earnings Call April 27, 2016 9:00 am ET Executives Meghan Geiger Beringer – Director-Investor Relations Charles E. Jones – President, Chief Executive Officer & Director James F. Pearson – Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer Leila L. Vespoli – Executive Vice President, Markets & Chief Legal Officer Donald R. Schneider – President, FirstEnergy Solutions (NASDAQ: FES ), FirstEnergy Solutions Corp. Analysts Jonathan Philip Arnold – Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates LLC Shahriar Pourreza – Guggenheim Securities LLC Neel Mitra – Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co. Securities, Inc. Brian J. Chin – Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC Kevin Prior – Evercore Group LLC Christopher J. Turnure – JPMorgan Securities LLC Stephen Calder Byrd – Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC Ashar Hasan Khan – Visium Asset Management LP Angie Storozynski – Macquarie Capital (NYSE: USA ), Inc. Anthony C. Crowdell – Jefferies LLC Michael Lapides – Goldman Sachs & Co. Praful Mehta – Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Broker) Operator Greetings, and welcome to the FirstEnergy Corp.’s First Quarter 2016 Earnings Conference Call. At this time all participants are in a listen-only mode. A brief question-and-answer session will follow the formal presentation. As a reminder, this conference is being recorded. It is now my pleasure to introduce your host, Ms. Meghan Beringer, Director, Investor Relations for FirstEnergy Corp. Thank you. You may begin. Meghan Geiger Beringer – Director-Investor Relations Thank you, Donna, and good morning. Welcome to FirstEnergy’s first quarter earnings call. Today, we will make various forward-looking statements regarding revenues, earnings, performance, strategies and prospects. These statements are based on current expectations and are subject to risks and uncertainties. Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those indicated by such statements can be found on the Investors section of our website under the Earnings Information link and in our SEC filings. We will also discuss certain non-GAAP financial measures. Reconciliations between GAAP and non-GAAP financial measures are also available on the website. Please note that we have also provided a slide presentation that will follow this morning’s discussions. If you are currently on the Investor page of our website or plan to visit at a later time, you’ll notice that we have redesigned the site to provide a more user-friendly experience, particularly on mobile devices. Also based on your feedback, we created an Investor Materials section located on the Investor menu for easier access to information that you must frequently use. As for today’s call, those who are participating include Chuck Jones, President and Chief Executive Officer; Jim Pearson, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; Leila Vespoli, Executive Vice President, Markets and Chief Legal Officer; Donny Schneider, President of FirstEnergy Solutions; Jon Taylor, Vice President, Controller and Chief Accounting Officer; Steve Staub, Vice President and Treasurer; and Irene Prezelj, Vice President, Investor Relations. Now I’d like to turn the call over to Chuck Jones. Charles E. Jones – President, Chief Executive Officer & Director Thanks, Meghan. Good morning everyone. Thanks for joining us. We’re off to a strong start in 2016 and I’m pleased to share this update with you today. Yesterday afternoon, we reported solid operating earnings of $0.80 per share, which is at the midpoint of our first quarter guidance. On a GAAP basis, earnings were $0.78 per share. While Jim will review our financial results in more detail, I want to quickly mention that we produced quality results and met our operating earnings guidance, despite the impact of an unseasonably mild winter and low power prices. The successful implementation of our economic dispatch strategy was key to that outcome because the fuel savings that resulted from idling some units when market prices did not support them, helped to offset the other impacts of mild temperatures across the company, particularly in our Distribution business. In addition to meeting our financial commitments to you, we continue to implement our regulated growth strategies. We have several positive developments on that front, and we will provide more detail today on our next steps to ensure continued service reliability for our customers with appropriate recovery of our investments. Let’s start in Ohio, where the Public Utilities Commission completed a comprehensive nearly two-year review of our Powering Ohio’s Progress Electric Security Plan and unanimously approved the plan with certain modifications. The PUCO concluded that the approved plan promotes rate stability and retail competition and adds value for Ohio customers, communities and the environment. I would both like to compliment and thank our Public Utilities Commissioners and staff for their leadership and handling a very complex regulatory matter. I am proud of this ESP and of the entire team that worked on it. The plan helped to safeguard customers against rising energy prices in future years while preserving key power plants that serve Ohio customers ensuring fuel diversity and maintaining Ohio jobs. In addition, it outlined steps to support low income customers, reinstate energy efficiency programs, evaluate smart grid technologies, and includes a goal to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. It truly fulfills the principles that the Ohio legislature outlined for the Electric Security Plans when they moved the state toward retail competition. Currently, it’s been a long and conscientious process to get to this point and while PUCO approval is a critical milestone, there are still challenges at FERC. Our opponents have also expressed their intent to bring court challenges. I will quickly review our position on these issues and Leila can address your additional questions during the Q&A. First, we believe FERC should affirm the waiver that is already in place. You’ll recall that FES was granted authorization from FERC to conduct certain transactions with our Ohio utilities in 2008. Our Purchase Power Agreement is one of those transactions. It was carefully constructed from the beginning to comply with existing FERC rules that promote customer shopping for retail energy supply and it will not hinder the PJM markets ability to function and foster competition. A separate complaint asked FERC to impose a price for on the PPA units for the May 2016 PJM, RPM capacity auction. We don’t believe there’s any reason for our PPA units to be treated differently than any of the other regulated generation in PJM. It’s no secret that a significant amount of generation, both regulated and merchant has been offered into prior PJM options with price taking behavior. Some of these complaints are likely in that group of suppliers. What they are asking FERC to do is essentially have FirstEnergy protect them from themselves. We have filed a strong answer demonstrating that a price floor is not needed and challenging the economic theory behind the opposition’s price floor methodology. And we do not expect that FERC will impose a price floor on the PPA units for the upcoming auction. With regards to the other potential challenges, we believe that the PUCOs decision is well within the Commission’s authority and we expect it will withstand subsequent challenges. Furthermore, the notion of non-bypassable charges on Ohio utility bills is not new, as charges for programs such as energy efficiency, economic development and low income support, as well as cost to support the bulk Transmission System have been in place for years. Given that FERC could make an announcement on the issues before them very soon, we are holding off on providing a second quarter operating earnings guidance. Once we do have additional clarity from FERC, we expect to have a better picture of our full-year 2016 outlook, and we will offer you further details and guidance. I know this decision may seem inconsistent with our stated objective to improve transparency and disclosures. We remain committed to giving you the information you need to evaluate our company when we know it. DSP is simply too significant to speculate on its outcome. While we do anticipate filing for a rehearing on the ESP IV by May 2, to address a few items of clarification, we’re moving forward to implement the PPA that was entered into on April 1. As you know, our Regulated Generation Group has experienced selling the output for Mon Powers regulated units at Fort Martin and Harrison into PJM. They’re using that experience and have retained a leading industry consultant to help prepare strategies and offer formation for the Davis-Besse and Sammis Plants in advance of the May, PJM capacity auction. The regulated team plans to sell the output from Davis-Besse and Sammis into PJM as of June 1. We’re also laying the groundwork to meet the provisions outlined in the terms of the ESP IV. In late February, we submitted our grid modernization business plan, which outlined the menu of options for the PUCO. We also filed our Energy Efficiency Plan with the Commission earlier this month and by November 1, we will file a carbon reduction report that outlines our fuel diversification and carbon reduction strategies. In the ESP, we proposed a CO2 reduction goal of at least 90% below 2005 levels by 2045, building on the 25% reduction in CO2 emissions already achieved across our footprint. This goal represents a potential reduction of more than 80 million tons of CO2 emissions and is among the most aggressive targets in the utility industry. In support of our commitment to a cleaner energy future, we launched a branding campaign in February called The Switch is On. This campaign highlights our environmental achievements, transition to a cleaner energy sources, and our Green electricity options. Earlier this month, we entered into a unique Green energy pact with the Cleveland Indians to provide Progressive Field with 100% Green-e certified wind energy from FirstEnergy Solutions. We also introduced an Earth Day promotion inviting Ohio and Pennsylvania residents to sign up for 100% wind energy at the same price as the standard energy offer. Turning to other regulatory matters, our proposed Mid-Atlantic Interstate Transmission subsidiary known as MAIT, received FERC approval in late February. As we have discussed, this subsidiary would hold the transmission assets of Met-Ed, Penelec and JCP&L, and facilitate new investments that can improve service reliability for these customers. Earlier this month, the Pennsylvania ALJs issued an initial decision approving a settlement filed by the parties resolving all issues in this case. We anticipate final approval from the Pennsylvania PUC by mid-year. And last week, we made a supplemental filing in New Jersey seeking to transfer certain JCP&L distribution assets into MAIT, which we believe should satisfy the concerns regarding public utility status that were addressed by the BPU in February. We will continue to work with the BPU because we believe transferring these assets to MAIT is the right thing to do for our New Jersey customers. As we mentioned in February, we have passed the halfway point of the first phase of our Energizing the Future transmission investment program with $2.4 billion invested through 2015 on projects designed to make our system more robust, secure, and resistant to extreme weather events. This program remains on track, and we continue to view the Transmission business as our primary growth platform for many years to come. Over the past two years, we have been focused on removing regulatory uncertainty and positioning our regulated businesses for growth. Tomorrow, we plan to file rate cases for JCP&L and our four Pennsylvania utilities that are consistent with our goals of enhancing customer service and reliability, strengthening the distribution system, improving security, and adding resiliency and operating flexibility to our infrastructure, while providing stability and growth for the company. In Pennsylvania, our four utilities will file rate plans with the Public Utilities Commission aimed at extending the service reliability improvement efforts that have yielded significant results for more than 2 million customers. Since 2011, the number of power outage impacting our Pennsylvania customers has decreased by an average of about 27%, while restoration times have improved by an average of about 14% in that same period. In total, our request would result in an expected revenue increase totaling $430 million across four Pennsylvania utilities, and we’ve broken down the impact by operating company in the Appendix of our slide presentation. These changes would bring the average monthly bills in line with the typical residential bills for the other three major electric utilities in the state, while benefiting customers by modernizing the grid with smart technologies, increased vegetation management activities and continuing customer service enhancements. Pending PUC approval, we anticipate that the new rates will take effect in January of 2017. The new base rates at the Pennsylvania utilities would also include recovery of costs associated with our long term infrastructure improvement plans, which include a projected increase in capital investments of $245 million over five years to help strengthen, upgrade and modernize our Pennsylvania distribution systems. We expect to begin recovering the cost of those programs in July through the distribution system improvement charges that are currently pending Pennsylvania PUC approval. We also plan to file a rate plan with the New Jersey BPU that supports and builds on the significant service reliability improvements made by JCP&L in recent years. The planned $142-million rate request seeks to improve service and benefit customers by supporting equipment maintenance, vegetation management and inspections of lines, poles and substations, while also compensating for other business and operating expenses. The JCP&L plan is designed to extend the service reliability improvements and helped the utility achieve its best service reliability record in more than a decade last year. While JCP&L’s rates have remained stable and even declined over the past decade, our operating expenses have continued to increase. Since July 2012, JCP&L has invested $612 million in service-related enhancement projects. And even with the proposed 6% overall rate increase for the average residential customer, JCP&L would continue to offer the lowest residential electric rates among the four regulated electric distribution companies in New Jersey. You will remember that our last rate case in New Jersey, which was based on a 2011 test year, was complicated due to storm recovery expense issues and other items. In the upcoming proceeding, which satisfies the BPU requirement that we file a new rate case by April of 2017, we hope for a reasonable timeline in recognition of the significant investments we have made. Allowing for a thorough review of our filing, we will request the new rates to go into effect in January of 2017. We remain focused on continuing to position our company for growth and success to best serve our customers, communities, investors and employees. Now, I would turn the call over to Jim for his review of the quarter. And as always, we will have plenty of time for your questions at the end of his remarks. James F. Pearson – Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer Thanks, Chuck, and good morning, everyone. I will remind you that detailed information about the quarter can be found in the consolidated report that was posted to our website yesterday evening. And as always, we welcome your questions during the Q&A or following the call. I’m sure you have also noticed that we did not publish a full FactBook this quarter. We hope to have greater clarity to regarding the PPA shortly, which would hopefully allow us to have an analyst meeting and provide full guidance for 2016. In place of the FactBook, we have included an Appendix to the slides for today’s call with certain regulatory and financial updates we would normally publish each quarter. Our first-quarter operating earnings of $0.80 per share compares to $0.62 per share in the first quarter of 2015. On a GAAP basis, we recorded earnings of $0.78 per share for the first quarter of 2016, compared to $0.53 per basic share during the same period last year. 2016 first quarter GAAP results include special items totaling $0.02 per share, which includes regulatory charges primarily related to economic development and energy efficiency programs associated with the Ohio ESP commitments, offset by mark-to-market gains on commodity contracts. A full listing of the special items can be found on page two of the consolidated report. In our Distribution business, results were impacted primarily by mild temperatures on distribution deliveries and lower rates in New Jersey that went into effect in 2015, partially offset by the benefit of Pennsylvania rates that were also implemented last year. Total distribution deliveries decreased 7.8% compared to the first quarter of 2015 with a 13.4% decrease in residential sales and a 5.1% decrease in commercial sales, reflecting heating degree days that were 25% below last year and 11% below normal. On a weather adjusted basis, residential deliveries were essentially flat while commercial deliveries decreased 1.6%. Sales to industrial customers decreased 2.8%. We do continue to see growth in shale gas sector but the rate has slowed dramatically in the past two years and is not enough to offset lower usage from steel and coal mining activity. First-quarter Industrial load was off nearly 110 gigawatt hours as a result of reduced operations at Republic Steel, which then announced an indefinite shutdown on April 1 and a permanent closure of Warren Steel. Overall, our sales are following the national trend that was noted by the Energy Information Association earlier this year. Whether-adjusted residential and commercial sales are each down more than 1% over the past four quarters while industrial load is down 3% in that timeframe. Drivers include the impact of more efficient lighting, appliances and equipment and slowing and shifting economic growth. In our Transmission business, operating earnings increased as a result of the higher rate base at ATSI, partially offset by the lower return on equity that was part of ATSI’s comprehensive settlement approved by FERC last fall. In our Competitive business, strong first quarter earnings reflect an increase in commodity margin, which primarily benefited from higher capacity revenues driven by increased capacity prices, as well as lower purchased power expense, higher wholesale sales and lower fossil fuel expense. These factors offset lower contract sales volume, which decreased in line with our hedging strategy. The decrease in fossil fuel expense relates to lower fuel rigs, and as Chuck indicated earlier, it also reflects the benefits for our economic dispatch strategy, which kept the Bruce Mansfield Plant offline for part of February and March. This strategy is the right approach at this time and we will continue to deploy it if markets don’t support plant operations. Clearly, this remains a very challenging business environment for our competitive units as prices continue to drop. Although we’re not updating our CES adjusted EBITDA guidance at this time. We know that a reduction of about $3 per megawatt-hour in the round-the-clock prices since the beginning of this year translates into a reduction of more than $50 million in wholesale revenue. Our committed sales are about 62 million megawatt-hours for 2016 with an additional 12 million megawatt-hours as part of the Ohio PPA. In 2017, we have 42 million megawatt-hours committed with an additional 20 million megawatt-hours for the Ohio PPA. We are reaffirming our expectations that the Competitive business will be cash flow positive each year through at least 2018. And finally, in Corporate, a higher consolidated income tax rate and other expenses reduced operating earnings by $0.02 per share compared to the first quarter of 2015. As Chuck said, we’re off to a very solid start in 2016, and we’re encouraged by the developments in Ohio and remain committed to providing customer-focused growth and creating long-term value for our shareholders. Now, I’d like to open the call up for your questions. Question-and-Answer Session Operator Thank you. The floor is now open for questions. Our first question is coming from Jonathan Arnold of Deutsche Bank. Please proceed with your question. Jonathan Philip Arnold – Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Good morning guys. Charles E. Jones – President, Chief Executive Officer & Director Good morning. James F. Pearson – Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer Good morning. Leila L. Vespoli – Executive Vice President, Markets & Chief Legal Officer Good morning. Jonathan Philip Arnold – Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Could you give us a sense of what the drivers for the rate increase – the rate request in Pennsylvania and New Jersey are? I hear the comment that your rates are going to be – and it’ll bring rates up to the average. But just what the big drivers are? And then maybe a sense of where the ROEs are tracking in the – to its various jurisdictions as you make these filings? James F. Pearson – Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer Jonathan, this is Jim. Let me take a shot at it and then I’ll let Leila get into more detail if we need. First off, we’re going to have an increase in our rate base. So, that will be part of it. We also have increased depreciation expense associated with our investments. We’re also rolling in the DISC rider as part of this increase. We have smart meters and also there has been a decrease in sales, so that’s going to be part of the driver there. So, those are primarily the major drivers. As I would say that there was not a defined ROE last year in the Pennsylvania case. So, it’s hard to say if we’re tracking to that. But, overall, I’d say our earnings in Pennsylvania are doing well, but because of these significant investments as well as the decrease in sales and the DISC rider, that is leading to the increase. And Leila, I don’t know if you have anything to add to that? Leila L. Vespoli – Executive Vice President, Markets & Chief Legal Officer Just one further point of clarification with respect to the – on the depreciation comment, and we’re actually proposing a changed methodology in depreciation that’s just driving some of that change. Jonathan Philip Arnold – Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Is that just in Pennsylvania or in both? Leila L. Vespoli – Executive Vice President, Markets & Chief Legal Officer Correct. Correct. Jonathan Philip Arnold – Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Okay. Is that a meaningful piece of it or just one of many? Leila L. Vespoli – Executive Vice President, Markets & Chief Legal Officer With regard to depreciation, it’s roughly $31 million of the change. Jonathan Philip Arnold – Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Okay. All right. Thanks. So it sounds like, in general, this is not about returns. It’s more about investments and the other things you listed. James F. Pearson – Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer That’s correct, Jonathan. Okay. Charles E. Jones – President, Chief Executive Officer & Director And Jonathan I have said all along that as we continue to move this company more towards a regulated model and we prepare for growth in our T&D operations, you’re going to see more and more rate increases or rate cases in order to accommodate that growth. Jonathan Philip Arnold – Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. So fair enough. I think I had a 6% number mentioned for New Jersey. Did you provide a percentage on the Pennsylvania jurisdictions? James F. Pearson – Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer It’s – I think that’s included in the Appendix Jonathan and when we break down all four of the Pennsylvania companies you have that rate increase. Jonathan Philip Arnold – Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Right, we’ll see that, and thank you. And then one final thing, you commented that you’re going to wait until you have clarity from FERC on giving Q2 guidance. But more broadly if, let’s say, FERC doesn’t act ahead of the upcoming auction and maybe there’s a longer delay there, how should we think about this in the context of when you might have an Analyst Day and a broader update to the outlook? Charles E. Jones – President, Chief Executive Officer & Director Well, I think that our game plan is to wait and see what FERC does. If it drags on too long, then my expectation is we’ll give you a guidance for 2016 without the ESP baked into it. That would be our plan. I don’t expect that this is going to drag on a long time. There’s a lot of speculation out there that they’ll make a decision before the May RPM. That doesn’t bother me so much if they don’t because a lot of the opponent’s cases suggesting that we’re going to do something inappropriate in how we bid these units. And once they see how we bid these units, then I think that would diffuse a lot of that argument. So if it waits until after the RPM, that wouldn’t bother me too much. But beyond that, I think if it continues to go on and we are going to give you guidance for 2016 without the ESP. Jonathan Philip Arnold – Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. So we should probably anticipate by early summer, you’ll be doing that then in any event? Charles E. Jones – President, Chief Executive Officer & Director Yes. Jonathan Philip Arnold – Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Okay, great. Thank you, guys. Operator Thank you. Our next question is coming from Paul Patterson of Glenrock Associates. Please proceed with your question. Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates LLC Good morning, guys. Charles E. Jones – President, Chief Executive Officer & Director Hi, Paul. James F. Pearson – Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer Good morning. Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates LLC Just a sort of follow-up on Jonathan’s question and your answer, should we – it seems to suggest that perhaps your bidding behavior would be the same with or without the PPA. Is that an accurate or that there wouldn’t be that big of a difference, how should we think about that? Charles E. Jones – President, Chief Executive Officer & Director Well, we’re not going to talk about our bidding behavior. But I think it is something that FERC can look at. If they just look at how we bid our West Virginia plants in the last RFP or actually in – since capacity performance, they could see a very good indication of how we bid units on the regulated side. We haven’t disclosed that bidding behavior and we don’t plan to. But my point is this. I don’t think that – I think there’s a lot of rhetoric going on about how these PPAs might affect the capacity market. It’s nothing, but rhetoric. This PPA has no impact on the PJM market whatsoever. Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates LLC Okay. And then, in terms of your expectation that they will probably take action before the auction, which is coming right up, is that with respect to all three cases or – excuse me – to the both cases for you, or one in particular? Leila L. Vespoli – Executive Vice President, Markets & Chief Legal Officer Hi, Paul, this is Leila. Given the high profile, I guess my view on this would be that they would be looking at both these cases before the Base Residual Auction. Just to give clarity, from the way I view the world, if you think about the affiliate waiver case, if I’m the chairman, he looks at things from a legalistic standpoint. I kind of view things that same way. And so I have a case in front of me where there’s strong precedence not to look behind the screen if you were to what the states are doing. He has – in the initial 2008 waiver, there was a claim by Nopak that non-bypassable charges should be looked at and should cause him to say that there’re not – not all the customers – that there are captive customers. They chose not to make that finding. So to go against this and grant the complaint, he would have to go against legal precedent. I don’t see him doing that and I think he would want to get that out of the way and that’s tied to Mon Power complaint because fundamentally they’re kind of looking to address, call it the same issue. And if you look at the Mon Power complaint, there are a lot of parties with – that wait in with a lot of different potential remedies. And I don’t think they’re going to fall prey to the hyperbole, especially out there by Dynegy that there is a burning platform that there is imminent danger. If they’re going to want to act and give clarity and take their time and look at this. So from my standpoint, I think they’re going to want to act on the waiver, I think they are going to deny the complaint because I think it’s – to do otherwise would be inconsistent with past precedent. They can take care of the issues supposedly involved in that complaint, in the Mon Power complaint, but they can do so in a very thoughtful way by addressing it through the stakeholder process what they are used to dealing with it and taking care of it in the next – for the next BRA auction in 2017. Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates LLC Okay. Great. Leila L. Vespoli – Executive Vice President, Markets & Chief Legal Officer I just wanted to give clarity to the market in that regard. Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates LLC That makes sense. And then just finally, I apologize if I missed this. The $0.09 charge – regarding the regulatory charge, what was that associated with? James F. Pearson – Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer The regulatory charge, that was primarily the commitment we made under the ESP, and that’s associated with some energy efficiency commitments, as well as some low income and some economic development. Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates LLC And it’s a one-timer? James F. Pearson – Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer It’s a one-timer. Since we committed to make those payments, so we’re required to recognize that at the time of the commitment. It is a liability to us. Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates LLC Thanks so much. Thank you. Operator Thank you. Our next question is coming from Shahriar Pourreza of Guggenheim Partners. Please proceed with your question Shahriar Pourreza – Guggenheim Securities LLC Good morning. Charles E. Jones – President, Chief Executive Officer & Director Hi, Shahriar. Shahriar Pourreza – Guggenheim Securities LLC Could we just write-off just a couple of policy questions, here? Can we touch on what we’re hearing a little bit on Chairman Porter’s potential resignation? The timing is a little bit suspect and it’s a crucial period. Could we get some clarity there? Charles E. Jones – President, Chief Executive Officer & Director Well, I will give you my comments. I think that Chairman Porter showed outstanding leadership during the time he was at the Commission. You know, he got a very important docket moved forward. Hate to see him go, but as you know how it goes. When job opportunities present themselves, you don’t get to pick the timing of them. So he called me the other day and we had a good conversation, and I don’t think you should read anything into it other than what was said. Shahriar Pourreza – Guggenheim Securities LLC Got it. Okay, that’s helpful. And then maybe a question directed to Leila. So the Supreme Court ruling in Maryland obviously net-net most saw it as a negative, but obviously some of the Justices gave some guidance around what would be from a legal standpoint possible. They clearly drew some distinctions between Maryland and New Jersey versus what you’re proposing in Ohio. So I’d like to get maybe your opinion here on what you thought of the Supreme Court ruling. Leila L. Vespoli – Executive Vice President, Markets & Chief Legal Officer So net-net, I actually think it’s quite positive. So you may recall the Maryland case was out there when we first constructed the PPA. So we knew we were kind of threading the needle with regard to that, and I think that the Supreme Court’s decision confirms that we did a good job of that. The decision in and of itself does not negatively impact it. In fact, if you look at one of the footnotes, they go into a long detailed description of the traditional bilateral contract, which mirrors directly our PPA. So from a structure standpoint, if you think about it, through that footnote, they signaled that the structure of the PPA is something that is out there in the market and that they feel comfortable with. So structurally, I think it meets the test. And then if you go back to the EPSA case, albeit (33:57) they made a statement that insulating retail customers from price fluctuations is something that fell under state authority. So if what the Commission’s purpose was was appropriate per EPSA and the structure is appropriate per the Hughes decision, I think again those two together present us a very strong case with regard to any Federal District Court case that might be brought our way. Shahriar Pourreza – Guggenheim Securities LLC Got it. So it’s just fair to say that if something if you get a negative outcome at FERC and this does gets taken up by the Supreme Court, it’s a pretty good standing. Leila L. Vespoli – Executive Vice President, Markets & Chief Legal Officer I think it’s an excellent standing. Thank you. Shahriar Pourreza – Guggenheim Securities LLC Excellent. Okay good. And just one last question, Chuck, on, sort of, having had an update on the equity. But if FERC decides to take up this case, and this, sort of, gets drawn out a little bit, how should we, sort of, think about your equity needs? Charles E. Jones – President, Chief Executive Officer & Director I think you should think about it the way I have been answering it for the last year-and-a-half. And that is we can’t make a determination until we have all of these answers, and I don’t expect that it’s going to be a lengthy FERC process. So – and my position from the beginning has been – it’s our obligation to structure this company and operate it in a way where we could get our credit issues behind us without having to use equity to do that. We’re talking to you about a lot of growth opportunities on the regulated distribution and transmission side. Assuming we get successfully done with MAIT, that opens up more transmission investment. And I’m not going to be embarrassed to tell you we want to use equity to help grow this company going forward. But the amount and the timing – I’m not ready to discuss. Shahriar Pourreza – Guggenheim Securities LLC Excellent. Thanks so much. Operator Thank you. Our next question is coming from Neel Mitra of Tudor, Pickering. Please proceed with your question. Neel Mitra – Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co. Securities, Inc. Hi. Good morning. Charles E. Jones – President, Chief Executive Officer & Director Good morning. Neel Mitra – Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co. Securities, Inc. I had a general question on the distribution strategy going forward. With lower sales growth, is the strategy to continue to file regular rate cases to compensate you for the increased spend or, in some jurisdictions are you looking to implement some sort of formula rate plans like you are with the DISC mechanism in Pennsylvania? Charles E. Jones – President, Chief Executive Officer & Director Well, I would answer that we have five different distribution strategies. We serve in five states. They all have different regulatory treatments. Under the Ohio ESP, we have an extension of the DCR through the term. We also have a new treatment for smart grid and smart meter type investments. So there is a different regulatory strategy in Ohio than in Pennsylvania. In Pennsylvania, we’ve got the LTIP and the DISC. And, obviously, we’re filing for rate cases there and in New Jersey. In West Virginia, we had a case last year where, if we get to a position where we need another case, we’ll file it. And in Maryland, quite frankly, the growth in load has been commensurate with our investments. And there has been no need to file a case there. So I think it’s five different strategies. Overall, though, I would tell you the strategy is to start making the investments needed to improve the service to our customers beyond where we’re at, to provide more security to the distribution network, and, basically, make investments to serve our customers better, and then do them in a way where we can communicate to you how we’re going to get the returns. Neel Mitra – Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co. Securities, Inc. Got it. And then my second question was on the competitive generation side and the sensitivity to the open position. Can you remind us roughly how many terawatt hours or what percentage of your expected generation that you plan to keep open in any given year? Donald R. Schneider – President, FirstEnergy Solutions ( FES ), FirstEnergy Solutions Corp. Yeah. This is Donny, Neel. Without the PPA, we have – our FactBook would show we have about 17 terawatt-hours open for 2016. I think Jim talked about the fact that a $3 move on that 17 terawatt-hours would be about a $50-million impact. With the PPA, if the PPA goes forward, we actually chew up some of that open position, as we look through the end of 2016. Neel Mitra – Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co. Securities, Inc. Okay. Okay. Got it. And then just last point of clarification on Pennsylvania. You say you’re going to implement the DISC structure with this rate case. Would that help basically lengthen out the period between rate cases? Or is that just for a small portion of the distribution spend going forward? Charles E. Jones – President, Chief Executive Officer & Director Actually the DISC – we have filed for the DISC effective July 1 to start treating the first investments in our Long Term Infrastructure Plan. And under this rate case, any DISC expenditures after that point would be rolled into the base rates, and then we have the option going forward to then use the DISC in real-time to recover investments in the Long Term Infrastructure Plan in the outyears. So, we file to invest $245 million over the next five years. So, we’re going to use both. Neel Mitra – Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co. Securities, Inc. Got it. Thank you. Operator Thank you. Our next question is coming from Brian Chin of Merrill Lynch. Please proceed with your question. Brian J. Chin – Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. Good morning. Charles E. Jones – President, Chief Executive Officer & Director Good morning. Leila L. Vespoli – Executive Vice President, Markets & Chief Legal Officer Hey, Brian. Good morning. Charles E. Jones – President, Chief Executive Officer & Director Good morning. Brian how are you doing? Brian J. Chin – Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. Very good. Very good. I just wanted to follow-up on the early equity issuance question just in a little bit more specific way. Can you provide your latest thoughts on timing or amount with regards to equity issuance just for Transmission purposes? And particularly if FERC is going to be delaying its response to the PPA question, does it make sense to potentially separate your equity issuance for transmission and not make that contingent on timing for FERC? Charles E. Jones – President, Chief Executive Officer & Director Well, so I’ve talked about in my comments the fact that we’re halfway through energizing the future; we’ve invested $2.4 billion in our Transmission over the last two years with no equity. And during a time that we were working to kind of strengthen our cash flows in order to improve our credit metrics. We’ve got two more years of that program at about $1 billion a year. I don’t see any equity needed to fund that Transmission growth. Going forward, if we plan to expand our Transmission investment program or expand significantly what we’re doing in the distribution, then any equity needs would be associated with increased investment in T&D. So, I answered the same way we’re not prepared to say what that amount is, but I don’t think you need to be worried about energizing the future being taken off-track in any case. Brian J. Chin – Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. Very good. Thanks. That’s all I’ve got. Operator Thank you. Our next question is coming from Julien Dumoulin-Smith of UBS. Please proceed with your question. Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC Hi. Good morning. Charles E. Jones – President, Chief Executive Officer & Director Hey, Julien. Leila L. Vespoli – Executive Vice President, Markets & Chief Legal Officer Good morning. Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC Hey. So, following up perhaps where we started on the rate cases, can you remind us where we stand on earned ROEs in kind of a trailing basis for 2015? Just I suppose speaking to the rate case filing itself for whatever you have out there, both New Jersey and Pennsylvania. And perhaps on a prospective basis, the purpose for the case, at least New Jersey, seems to be recovering O&M, and then separately Pennsylvania seems principally driven by the implementation of the DISC and spending investments there, is that kind of good (42:21) them respectively? James F. Pearson – Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer Julien, this is Jim. I would say that in Pennsylvania, it’s primarily driven by somewhat the decrease in the load. It’s part of the DISC filing that we have. There’s also additional investments that we’ve made there. We’ve got a very large smart meter implementation program going on over there. So that’s primarily what’s driving that in Pennsylvania. You’re also able to file on the forward-looking test year. When I look at New Jersey, it’s primarily driven by a significant amount of investment that we’ve made since the last test year in New Jersey, and that was 2011. And as we said in our remarks since July of 2012, we’ve had a significant amount of capital investment. And why we say partway through 2012, because in the test year New Jersey you’re allowed to claim in-service amounts for six months after the in-service date. So we’ve had a significant amount of investment in New Jersey, so that’s what’s driving that. Again, as far as our overall return on equity within each of the states, I would say that we’re probably tracking right around where we should, based on the last rate proceedings. However, as you know, in Pennsylvania, they did not publish what the ROE was in the settlement. Leila L. Vespoli – Executive Vice President, Markets & Chief Legal Officer Julien, this is Leila. The only thing that I would add when you’re thinking about Pennsylvania, think about aggressive energy efficiency measures and no lost distribution recovery. So when Jim was talking about the lower revenue, those factors play into that. Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC Got it. And then, turning to the equity piece of the equation, just to be clear on setting expectations, we shouldn’t expect to hear from you on equity until you get a definitive decision to either reject or accept the waiver – well, not the waiver, but the decision outright from FERC, and no action from the credit rating agencies correspondingly until that’s well (44:46). Charles E. Jones – President, Chief Executive Officer & Director Correct. I would say, yes. Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC Okay, great. Thank you, guys. Operator Thank you. Our next question is coming from Greg Gordon of Evercore ISI. Please proceed with your question. Kevin Prior – Evercore Group LLC Hi. This is actually Kevin. Other than the PPA, are there any other uncertainties or hurdles that would prevent you from giving guidance in the early summer? Charles E. Jones – President, Chief Executive Officer & Director No. Kevin Prior – Evercore Group LLC Okay. And if the FERC was to uphold the contracts, but it ended up going to the Ohio Supreme Court, would you still plan to implement the contracts on June 1, or would it then be delayed? Charles E. Jones – President, Chief Executive Officer & Director We plan to implement them on June 1. Kevin Prior – Evercore Group LLC No matter what challenges there. Okay. That’s all I have. Thanks. Operator Thank you. Our next question is coming from the Chris Turnure of JPMorgan. Please proceed with your question. Christopher J. Turnure – JPMorgan Securities LLC Good morning. I was wondering if we could talk a little bit about the supply side of the business. And ex the PPA, if you just look at the performance over the past couple of quarters, I think specifically, excluding the change in capacity prices and excluding the change in the volume. You’ve had a pretty noticeable improvement there, despite decline in commodity prices. Maybe you could just flush that out a little bit more and give us a color there. Charles E. Jones – President, Chief Executive Officer & Director So, I’ll start and then I’ll let Donny add to it. During 2015, we talked with you about our cash flow improvement program. Much of that was focused on the Competitive business. And much of that was focused on getting our Competitive business to the point where it continues to be cash flow positive and it has no need for any cash from the parent through 2018 at current energy prices as we know them. So part of that was also targeted at the FFO from the Generation business. So we reduced O&M expenditures, which contributed to some of what you’re seeing there. So that’s kind of from an operational perspective, the thing that Jim Lash and his Generation team have done to improve the competitiveness of that business. I will let Donny talk a little bit about the Commodity side. Donald R. Schneider – President, FirstEnergy Solutions ( FES ), FirstEnergy Solutions Corp. Yes, I’d just add, obviously we have taken a position starting after the polar vortex in 2014 to derisk the business and to move away from weather sensitive load. You’ll recall in the first quarter of 2015 we had what’s been referred to as the Siberian Express and while it was not nearly as significant of an impact to FES as the polar vortex, it’s still have some impact. I’m happy to report this past quarter, although we had very mild weather, the fact that we have much less weather sensitive load, are results were pretty much in line with our expectations from a sales perspective. Charles E. Jones – President, Chief Executive Officer & Director Donny and his team are doing a fantastic job running the business too. Back in February when we had Mansfield off for two weeks, the entire plant off, there were several seller side notes that suggested that, meant that load was down and we’re going to have a bad quarter. In reality, that’s part of how we’re dispatching is those units differently. So we don’t run them when we can’t make money with them. So I talked in my remarks about that save this fuel. So Donny is doing a great job at looking at every day, every hour, how do we maximize that business under some very difficult economic times. Christopher J. Turnure – JPMorgan Securities LLC Okay. I mean, to that point is there anything that we should think about historically that’s forced you to run units that were uneconomic, such as mandatory take-or-pay coal contracts or something of that nature that would be rolling off this year or in the future, to kind of provided a tailwind for your numbers all else equal or I might barking up the wrong tree there? Charles E. Jones – President, Chief Executive Officer & Director Go ahead Donny. Donald R. Schneider – President, FirstEnergy Solutions ( FES ), FirstEnergy Solutions Corp. Yeah. I mean, we’ve had coal contracts in place for a lot of years. It gives us significant flexibility. This isn’t really something new for us. I think the degree is much greater now, but you’ll recall back in – I believe it was 2012 – around August 2012, we took the entire Sammis Plant down and kept it offline through December. So it’s not really new. I think the difference is with the weak – incredibly weak forward day ahead market that we are seeing, it calls in more economic dispatch than perhaps what we had seen in the past. Christopher J. Turnure – JPMorgan Securities LLC Okay, great. And then shifting gears to transmission again, the rejection by New Jersey of your utility status for that MAIT request would seem on the surface to be a significant setback. But your comments have indicated that you’re going to continue to push forward, and you think it’s very important. Could you maybe characterize how important the New Jersey part of MAIT program is to the overall transmission spend kind of levels going forward and growth going forward, and the timing now that you have had this setback, if it’s been adjusted at all in New Jersey (50:18)? Charles E. Jones – President, Chief Executive Officer & Director Yes. So, first I would say, I think MAIT is very important to our customers in New Jersey. And we have to do a better job of helping the BPU understand why it is important. We’ve done that in our latest filing and will continue to work with them to get it across the finish line. If we don’t, then we’ll look at options to implement MAIT in Pennsylvania potentially. But as far as your real question in terms of how does it affect or transmission investment strategy, we’ve got two more years of energizing the future. We’ve got projects beyond that inside ATSI and TrAILCo that we can continue to move forward with. I don’t see MAIT been crucial at all to our transmission investment strategy. I see it as a way to implement that transmission investment strategy in a way where we can lower the cost of capital and do it in a way that’s better for customers and create more transparency for our investors. That’s how I see it. Christopher J. Turnure – JPMorgan Securities LLC Great. Thanks, Chuck. Operator Thank you. Our next question is coming from Stephen Byrd of Morgan Stanley. Please proceed with your question. Stephen Calder Byrd – Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC Hi. Good morning. Charles E. Jones – President, Chief Executive Officer & Director Good morning, Stephen. Stephen Calder Byrd – Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC Most of my questions have been addressed. I just wanted to focus on the Pennsylvania revenue request. When I look at the Appendix, it looks like the customer bill impacts can be relatively significant. I think one of the jurisdictions, it’s about 18%, if I’m reading the page correctly. Is there a way to phase that out in order to otherwise lessen the overall bill impact, and are there other precedents we can look to in Pennsylvania in terms of just how to think about that, that it looks like a fairly sizeable rate impact? James F. Pearson – Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer Stephen, this is Jim. I would say that, as we said earlier in our comments and Chuck said, it is that this will bring the average residential bill in Pennsylvania up to – about what’s average within the state. You’ll recall we went a number of years without increasing our rates in the State of Pennsylvania. It’s also being offset by a – from a customer perspective, it’s being offset by a reduction in their overall energy component of the bill. So, I don’t view this as something it’s going to be what would be described as a rate shock issue. As far as your earlier request, no I don’t – we don’t see any mechanism out there where we would phase this in. This is just a normal type of request that we would have. And again as Leila pointed out earlier, there is very stringent energy efficiency requirements in the State of Pennsylvania, which is decreasing the usage. So we’re required to go in and file for these rates. So that’s the way we’re looking at it. Stephen Calder Byrd – Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC Understood. And in terms of the magnitude of the benefit from lower energy costs, is there a way for us to get a sense for the magnitude of that benefit? Charles E. Jones – President, Chief Executive Officer & Director I think you could probably look at where wholesale power prices have gone over the last few years. And as Donny mentioned, wholesale power prices have fallen $3.00 already this year. So I think there was a period of time when around-the-clock power prices were in the $50-plus range, and if you look at the forwards out there right now, over the next three years, they’re probably closer to the $30 range. Stephen Calder Byrd – Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC Understood. Great, thank you very much. Operator Thank you. Our next question is coming from Ashar Khan of Visium. Please proceed with your question. Ashar Hasan Khan – Visium Asset Management LP Good morning, and congrats. One thing I was just wanted to help in terms of trying to measure these rate cases in terms of earnings potential. Is there some way you could give us what the increase in kind of rate base would be from kind of like what you have in your numbers this year versus – because it’s a forward test year next year, could you signify the increase in rate base for the two jurisdictions? Charles E. Jones – President, Chief Executive Officer & Director I will answer it at a high level, and if you want details, then I’ll let Leila and Jim fill in. But as filed, in effect January of next year, the JCP&L case is about $0.20 a share and the Pennsylvania cases combined are about $0.40 a share. Ashar Hasan Khan – Visium Asset Management LP Okay. That’s very helpful. And that was my question. Thank you so much. Charles E. Jones – President, Chief Executive Officer & Director Okay. Thanks Ashar. Operator Thank you. Our next question is coming from Angie Storozynski of Macquarie. Please proceed with your questions. Angie Storozynski – Macquarie Capital ( USA ), Inc. Thank you. I have only one question. So when I look at the plans covered by the PPA, say, in 2016, can you tell us if the assets the plans have a positive EPS contribution without the PPA? Donald R. Schneider – President, FirstEnergy Solutions ( FES ), FirstEnergy Solutions Corp. Angie, this is Donny. Let me make sure I understand your question. So you’re asking if Sammis and Davis-Besse have a positive earnings contribution without the PPA? Angie Storozynski – Macquarie Capital ( USA ), Inc. Yeah. So basically, when you showed us the EBITDA and then a bridge to net income or EPS, for SES – or CES without the PPAs, can you tell us the assets of those three plans or two plans that are covered by PPAs, so without the PPA would they have a positive EPS impact? Donald R. Schneider – President, FirstEnergy Solutions ( FES ), FirstEnergy Solutions Corp. Yes. For 2016, Sammis and Davis-Besse would definitely both have positive earnings per share impact. Angie Storozynski – Macquarie Capital ( USA ), Inc. How about 2017 or 2018 based on the current forwards on capacity payments? Donald R. Schneider – President, FirstEnergy Solutions ( FES ), FirstEnergy Solutions Corp. I don’t think we’re giving any guidance on forward years, Angie. Angie Storozynski – Macquarie Capital ( USA ), Inc. Because I mean, we are all struggling I think with the impact of your PPAs on your bottom line because we just don’t know what’s the offset from the current earnings power of these assets. That’s why I am asking? Charles E. Jones – President, Chief Executive Officer & Director I understand you are struggling with it, and I understand that the estimates are all over the board for what this ESP means. And believe me, as soon as we can give you clarification, we plan to do that. Once we have an answer from FERC, we will tell you what the value of this company is going forward with the ESP. If we don’t have an answer, then we’re going to give you 2016 guidance without the ESP. And I apologize that we’re leaving you hanging out there, but it’s just too big a moving part for us to speculate on the outcome. Angie Storozynski – Macquarie Capital ( USA ), Inc. Okay. I understand. Thank you. Operator Thank you. Our next question is coming from Anthony Crowdell of Jefferies. Please proceed with your question. Anthony C. Crowdell – Jefferies LLC Hey, good morning. Just – most of my questions have been answered. Just want to follow-up as the company is looking to transition more to a regulated utility, thoughts on maybe rate basing or getting some type of cost of severance return on Pleasants, on other power plants, particularly Pleasants or Mansfield? Charles E. Jones – President, Chief Executive Officer & Director Well, first of all, we are a regulated utility. 90%-plus of our earnings today come from our regulated operations. What we’re talking about is growth and investment inside that regulated utility. We filed our integrated resource plan with West Virginia. I think later this year, they’ll start taking a look at it seriously, and it’s up to the West Virginia Commission to decide would Pleasants be the appropriate solution. Obviously, we have a model in place already with Harrison, and we think that is something they ought to look at. Anthony C. Crowdell – Jefferies LLC In Pennsylvania, is there a similar filing or similar thought process, or just West Virginia? Charles E. Jones – President, Chief Executive Officer & Director Just West Virginia. Anthony C. Crowdell – Jefferies LLC Great. Thank you. Operator Thank you. Our next question is coming from Michael Lapides of Goldman Sachs. Please proceed with your question. Michael Lapides – Goldman Sachs & Co. Hey, guys. Real quick, do you ever put or can you discuss what you think the scale of the MAIT investment could be over a multi-year time? I mean, should we think about it similar to the size and scale of what ATSI and TrAIL have been? Now, I know lots of TrAIL was just one big project, but ATSI was a series of projects. Is it something that could be significantly smaller or significantly bigger? Just trying to get arms around how you’re – I don’t know how you are thinking about the size, scale and scope of MAIT could be? Charles E. Jones – President, Chief Executive Officer & Director So, first of all, let me clarify again. We’ve told you we have over $15 billion of Transmission projects that our teams already identified on our existing 24,000 miles of Transmission System. Those projects can be executed with or without MAIT. MAIT is a vehicle to improve the recovery mechanism from a transparency perspective for investors and lower the cost of capital to make those investments more efficient for customers. That’s all MAIT is. It doesn’t stop us from moving forward with the transmission investment program. As far as the scale of the program, we’ll talk to you about that once we know the base of the company that we’re operating on after we get a resolution on this ESP, because it’s more driven by our capability of raising the cash and likely some equity to fund it. So we’ll tell you about that once we know those answers. Michael Lapides – Goldman Sachs & Co. Got it. Okay. I was just trying to get my arms around MAIT. The transmission in the Eastern part of your service territories seems like a huge opportunity in terms of the rate base growth there. And just trying to get my arms around kind of the magnitude of the impact over time. One other question for you. O&M, where do you see the greatest opportunities across your businesses to manage O&M further down and you’ve done a really good job over the last year or so in doing so. Where do you see the incremental opportunities and where potentially are their headwinds? Charles E. Jones – President, Chief Executive Officer & Director Well, I don’t think of it necessarily as managing O&M down. I think about it as spending the appropriate amount of O&M to serve our customers the right way. And as we invest in new equipment, O&M is going to trend down. In the Transmission System, we’re replacing 60-year and 70-year old equipment with brand new equipment, that as I’ve shared before we’re basically buying with 30-year warranties from the manufacturer – full warranties where we don’t have to do any O&M on them. So we’re going to spend the appropriate O&M as long as we’re having rate cases and we’re having timely recovery of our expenses, I think the shareholders are immune to how much O&M is involved. And so when you think about it, it’s more about where do we spend it, how is it being recovered and is this the right amount for customers. Michael Lapides – Goldman Sachs & Co. Got it. Thanks Chuck. Much appreciated. Charles E. Jones – President, Chief Executive Officer & Director Okay. Take care Michael. Operator Thank you. We’re showing time for one additional question today. Our last question will be coming from Praful Mehta of Citigroup. Please proceed with your questions. Praful Mehta – Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Broker) Hi, Thank you. Most of… Charles E. Jones – President, Chief Executive Officer & Director Good morning. Praful Mehta – Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Broker) …my questions have been answered. Just quickly on strategic direction in M&A, I guess if the Ohio PPA goes one way or the other, does that change your view around how you think about M&A in general? There’s clearly a lot of M&A that happened last year, it continues to be top of M&A this year. So, if you could just broadly – now that you’re going more towards the regulated platform and clearly as you said, you are a regulated utility, how are you thinking about strategic direction in M&A in that context? Charles E. Jones – President, Chief Executive Officer & Director Of all the things I’ve been thinking about a CEO the last 16 months, M&A is not high on that priority. That’s how I would answer that. We’re trying to strengthen the company that we know. We’re a big company; we have 6 million customers to serve. We’re going to do that the right way. Praful Mehta – Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Broker) Fair enough. Thank you. Charles E. Jones – President, Chief Executive Officer & Director Okay. Before we leave, I have one final announcement that I’d like to make. Many of you know Rey Jimenez, Rey has been part of our IR team at FirstEnergy since 1997, and he has decided that he would rather spend his time in retirement than talking to all of you in the future. So, he is going to be retiring after 39 years with the company. He will be in the office until early June and I’d encourage you – I know many of you have worked with him, to get a chance to wish him the best as we will for a healthy and happy retirement. So, just wanted to make that announcement. Thank you all again for your support and confidence, and we’ll be talking to you again as soon as we have an answer from FERC. Operator Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your participation. This concludes today’s teleconference. You may disconnect your lines at this time. And have a wonderful day. Copyright policy: All transcripts on this site are the copyright of Seeking Alpha. However, we view them as an important resource for bloggers and journalists, and are excited to contribute to the democratization of financial information on the Internet. (Until now investors have had to pay thousands of dollars in subscription fees for transcripts.) So our reproduction policy is as follows: You may quote up to 400 words of any transcript on the condition that you attribute the transcript to Seeking Alpha and either link to the original transcript or to www.SeekingAlpha.com. All other use is prohibited. THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HERE IS A TEXTUAL REPRESENTATION OF THE APPLICABLE COMPANY’S CONFERENCE CALL, CONFERENCE PRESENTATION OR OTHER AUDIO PRESENTATION, AND WHILE EFFORTS ARE MADE TO PROVIDE AN ACCURATE TRANSCRIPTION, THERE MAY BE MATERIAL ERRORS, OMISSIONS, OR INACCURACIES IN THE REPORTING OF THE SUBSTANCE OF THE AUDIO PRESENTATIONS. IN NO WAY DOES SEEKING ALPHA ASSUME ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY INVESTMENT OR OTHER DECISIONS MADE BASED UPON THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS WEB SITE OR IN ANY TRANSCRIPT. USERS ARE ADVISED TO REVIEW THE APPLICABLE COMPANY’S AUDIO PRESENTATION ITSELF AND THE APPLICABLE COMPANY’S SEC FILINGS BEFORE MAKING ANY INVESTMENT OR OTHER DECISIONS. If you have any additional questions about our online transcripts, please contact us at: transcripts@seekingalpha.com . Thank you!

Playing The Oil Trend With UWTI

The best way to cash in on a trend in crude oil is not by buying and selling the contracts but watching ETFs that track their prices. Over the past two years, these exchange traded funds have become very popular as oil prices plunged to sub-$30 levels. In a MarketWatch article , the VelocityShares 3x Long Crude Oil ETN (NYSEARCA: UWTI ) was cited as being the fifth most traded security by millennials. UWTI is hardly a tool for hedging against the risk of volatile oil prices. Instead, traders use the derivative as way to bet on different oil trends hoping to cash in on the accelerated payout it offers. This ETF generates a whopping 119 million shares of average volume despite year-to-date losses of over 38%. Its popularity trumps both the iPath S&P Crude Oil Total Return Index ETN ( OIL) and the United States Oil ETF ( USO), which average about 5 million and 51 million shares with YTD losses below 25%. There’s no doubt that UWTI provides traders the opportunity to cash out on an accurate projection of oil prices, but its high leverage and volatility can translate to large, sudden losses if a trend reverses. The best way to reduce risk created by unexpected, short-term fluctuations is to buy at the very bottom of the trend and hold until it tops off in the long run. With the market beginning to tame, investors should start to consider this trade before it’s too late. During the week ending March 12th, the price of West Texas Intermediate contracts rose from the low $30’s as investors finally saw production slow down. Baker Hughes reported earlier that week that rig counts fell to an all-time record low of 480 instigating pent up bullish sentiment. Recent evidence showing a decline in production has caused gains of just over 20% in the past month of trading sessions. While analysts are looking forward to a smaller supply in the future, traders can’t ignore the risks of the current fundamental situation which is still oversupplied by the extra oil still sitting idle in storage. Given how volatile oil trading has been over the past year and a half, skeptics have reason to doubt the rebound and may even see another plunge coming. That would mean complications for those waiting to bet on a bottom. I’m here to tell you not to worry. It’s time to bet on that bottom. Introducing the Deviation Moving Average first published and constantly updated on my blog here . This indicator is similar to a trend line with an adjustment that accounts for a constant deviation in price. The blue line follows WTI price, and is coupled with the orange line, a 50-day moving average plus the 10-day moving average of the actual price’s deviation from its 50-day moving average. With this enhancement, traders can track actual price movements against a deviation that the group has determined is acceptable. Because of intraday trading, the actual price will move either above or below its trend line. Crossover points show a reversal in short-term sentiment. The gap (length of time over or under the orange line) between each point is usually the same size and the variance (absolute value of the difference between the two lines) peaks at about the same height. This idea can be better visualized by the difference chart which is plotted over the past year. In the very volatile 2015, the gaps of smaller sentiment trends lasted just under a month with variance peaking at about $4.00. Using these observations, investors can predict where a small reversal may take place and where the momentum of those reversals are pushing the overall trend. Looking back at the first chart, one can see a curious trend that has developed over the past month. The actual price has not crossed over its deviation moving average line since February 12th, 2015. In fact, the variance has continued to stay constant despite reaching a difference of over $5.00. If the volatile trend of 2015 were to continue, WTI price would have started to fluctuate back downward about a week ago. So why has this not happened? Why has the gap been sustained? The chart shows a change in trend that occurred because of the shift in expectations from oil and gas investors. With the lower rig utilization and the hope of OPEC members freezing output, the buzz saw trend has softened with stability in the long-term price a reality. The new, smaller price channel that emerges might not reach above $50, but it will ease the uncertainty that has plagued oil corporations and oil exporting countries. Because UWTI is a derivative based on the price of oil, volatility there will begin to soften like it has in the WTI spot price trend. As the danger of a sudden plunge in price wanes, it will be safer to establish a long position consisting of UWTI or other energy ETFs. From there, one can ride a long-term trend upward without having to worry about a replay of the bearish tsunamis that drowned out the first month of 2016. Even if WTI were to crossover its deviation moving average in the near future, that point would be linger around the low- to mid-$30 range which is far from the bottoms established in January. With the deepest valley in the past, a smooth, upward climb for the price of oil will allow investors to cash out using the accelerated UWTI exchange traded fund. Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it. I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.