Tag Archives: development

Pattern Energy Group: Questionable Acquisitions, And Dividends Funded By Capital Raises

Dividends are increasing despite shrinking Cash Available For Distribution, earnings estimates falling considerably, and increasing share count. PEGI’s parent company, Pattern Development, is dumping shares while selling assets to PEGI at higher and higher prices and sharing a CEO and other executives with PEGI. PEGI’s acquisitions from PD and the dividends are funded by public offerings which are dependent on dividend-hungry investors. Something has to give. Pattern Energy Group (NASDAQ: PEGI ) is an “independent power company focused on owning and operating power projects … [they] hold interests in twelve wind power projects located in the United States, Canada and Chile that use proven, best-in-class technology and have a total owned capacity of 1,636 MW.” Pattern is part of a recently developed genre of so-called “YieldCos”, which also includes companies like TerraForm Power (NASDAQ: TERP ), Abengoa Yield (NASDAQ: ABY ) and Nextera (NYSE: NEP ). These companies generally buy energy projects from a parent company and then distribute the proceeds from their operations as dividends. There are three things about Pattern that in my eyes sets them apart from other YieldCo’s. Any of these things individually isn’t necessarily a problem, but together they paint an interesting picture: Their portfolio is exclusively (with one small exception) wind energy projects and thus more susceptible to irregular weather patterns like El-Nino. Pattern’s parent has only a 25% (and shrinking) ownership interest in Pattern. Pattern shares executives with their parent company. This article is nothing more than a close reading of PEGI’s 2014 10-K. ( https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1561660/000119312515073104/d842437d10k.htm ). Let’s get to the 10-K, where PEGI discusses another company, Pattern Development (I will refer to them as PD): We are party to the Management Services Agreement, pursuant to which each of our executive officers (including our Chief Executive Officer), with the exception of our Chief Financial Officer and Senior Vice President, Operations, is a shared PEG executive and devotes time to both our company and Pattern Development as needed to conduct our respective businesses. As a result, these shared PEG executives have fiduciary and other duties to Pattern Development. Conflicts of interest may arise in the future between our company (including our stockholders other than Pattern Development) and Pattern Development (and its owners and affiliates). .. Pattern Development’s general partner and certain of its officers and directors also have a fiduciary duty to act in the best interest of Pattern Development’s limited partners, which interest may differ from or conflict with that of our company and our other stockholders. Emphasis mine. PEGI and PD share a CEO and other officers. This may be a problem since PEGI acquires power projects from PD. In fact, acquiring from PD is PEGI’s stated growth strategy. It is also worth noting that many of their executives immediately before Pattern worked at Babcock and Brown, an investment firm that went bankrupt in 2009. Our growth strategy is focused on the acquisition of operational and construction-ready power projects from Pattern Development and other third parties that we believe will contribute to the growth of our business and enable us to increase our dividend per Class A share over time. We expect that our continuing relationship with Pattern Development, a leading developer of renewable energy projects, will be an important source of growth for our business. I have assembled the data about Pattern’s acquisitions. Here is what I have observed: (click to enlarge) As you can see, they are generally pretty fair regarding prices paid to PD versus prices paid to other parties, with one giant exception, that being K2 which was announced in early April of this year. The average price paid to PD per MW of the above is $1.09M. The average price paid to others is $0.97M, and the average price paid to PD, excluding K2, is $0.76M. In other words, the recent K2 acquisition sticks out like a sore thumb and I would be curious to know their rationale for paying such a high price, especially given that it is the largest acquisition in absolute dollars as well as $/MW but one of the smallest in terms of MW of capacity acquired. Maybe they got a high $/MWh power purchase contract out of it. I should note that $/MW isn’t the end-all-be-all of metrics, but it’s all we have, and as Berkshire Hathaway’s Charlie Munger has said, roughly, “If we see someone who weighs 300 pounds or 320 pounds, it doesn’t matter-we know they’’re fat.” The cost paid per MW for acquisitions from PD has steadily risen, whether we include K2 or not: Meanwhile, PD is dumping PEGI shares while PEGI does public offerings. Additionally, PD is using their PEGI shares as margin on a loan: In May 2014, we completed a follow-on offering of our Class A shares. In total, 21,117,171 Class A shares were sold. Of this amount, we sold 10,810,810 Class A shares and Pattern Development, a selling stockholder, sold 10,306,361 of our Class A shares . In addition, in February 2015, we completed another follow-on offering of our Class A shares. In total 12,000,000 Class A shares were sold. Of this amount, we issued and sold 7,000,000 Class A shares and Pattern Development, a selling shareholder, sold 5,000,000 of our Class A shares … …In addition, on May 6, 2014, Pattern Development entered into a loan agreement pursuant to which it may pledge up to 18,700,000 Class A shares to secure a $100.0 million loan . If Pattern Development were to default on its obligations under the loan, the lenders, upon the expiration of certain lock-up agreements, would have the right to sell shares to satisfy Pattern Development’s obligation. Such an event could cause our stock price to decline… Last year, PEGI paid about $52M in dividends. This year, they converted their Class B shares to Class A, and issued more class A shares as mentioned above, so they’ll have to pay more in total dollar terms for the same amount of dividends per share. They recently reported Q1 2015 quarterly Cash Available for Distribution (CAFD) of $9M and announced a quarterly dividend of around $23M. Thus, CAFD as they define it wasn’t enough to cover their recent dividend. On the recent conference call, they mentioned that they have some “CAFD-like” cash-flows that aren’t included in CAFD but can be used to cover the dividend. This seems to me to be “moving the goalposts” but it is perfectly possible that it is the case. PEGI’s earnings have been consistently below estimates, and their future earnings estimates are falling considerably, creating doubt in my mind that they can hit their growth targets. The following shows their Q4 2014 calculation of “Cash Available For Distribution”, or CAFD, which they just announced will grow at a 12-15% CAGR for the next 3 years ( http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/AMDA-25NBHH/80126018x0x814874/0629F770-71BB-47FE-83CD-658E363DCA8B/03.03.15_PEGI_presentation.pdf ): (click to enlarge) You will notice that in their calculation of Cash available for distribution, they account for Operations and Maintenance (O&M) capex. Somehow, this may not be enough to maintain their operating performance. From the same document: However, cash available for distribution has limitations as an analytical tool because it excludes depreciation and accretion, does not capture the level of capital expenditures necessary to maintain the operating performance of our projects , is not reduced for principal payments on our project indebtedness except to the extent it is paid from operating cash flows during a period, and excludes the effect of certain other cash flow items, all of which could have a material effect on our financial condition and results from operations. Emphasis mine. If “O&M capex” isn’t enough to maintain the operating performance, then either they are skimping on O&M capex, or more capex should be considered O&M capex for their calculation of CAFD. Either way, by their own admission, CAFD doesn’t reflect the amount of CapEx necessary to maintain operating performance. Long term, wind energy is of questionable value compared to solar in my view. However, Pattern has locked in fixed purchased power agreements where they get to sell all of the power produced at a price that either is fixed or escalates with CPI. Thus, they have protected themselves from falling electricity demand. On the flip side, if demand rises they don’t have pricing power. Fixed prices are not advantageous if inflation ever picks up, since their costs would rise much faster than revenues. Near term, there are not major threats to wind production, but in the very long term, distributed solar generation could make it difficult for utilities to add more fixed purchased power contracts, or to follow through with their fixed power purchase contracts. The cost of solar power decreases (see Swanson’s Law ) by roughly one-half every 10 years. Wind energy does not have the same advances in efficiency: There may be a time in the future where solar power is efficient to the point that wind power is rendered too expensive to use, the cash flows from wind projects may not run as far into the future as expected when they are built. One last interesting bit I noticed in the 10-K: Our proportional MWh sold in the year ended December 31, 2014 was 2,914,810 MWh, as compared to 1,771,772 MWh in the year ended December 31, 2013, representing an increase of 1,143,038 MWh or approximately 65% . This increase in proportional MWh sold during 2014 as compared to 2013 was primarily attributable to the commencement of commercial operations at South Kent, El Arrayán, Panhandle 1 and Panhandle 2 at various times during the year and an increase in production from an additional 42 MW at Ocotillo for the full year of 2014. Our average realized electricity price was approximately $88 per MWh during the year ended December 31, 2014 as compared to approximately $88 per MWh in the prior year. Between 2013 and 2014 prices per MWh remained constant while proportional MWh sold increased a whopping 65%! However, as far as I can tell, no meaningful part of their revenue grew 65%. Perhaps they use a simple average rather than a weighted average, but that wouldn’t make sense in my view. In conclusion, while the ~5% dividend yield may look attractive, it would be inadvisable to buy this stock for a sustained dividend, in view of the above. There are of course risks to the concerns raised in this article. It is possible that the wind picks up substantially, they are able to generate enough cash from their new acquisitions to sustain the dividend, they can tap the capital markets to cheaply raise more cash, and that the amount of capex necessary to maintain operating performance is negligibly larger than the O&M capex they use to calculate CAFD. Perhaps they are able to diversify into more solar projects. Trading at over 7x Sales, though, a lot has to go right to justify their valuation in my view. I reached out to their IR department through their website about conflicts of interest, the Conflicts Committee, their acquisitions, O&M Capex, and why revenues didn’t grow as much as Average Price times MWh sold. I received no response. Disclosure: The author is short PEGI. (More…) The author wrote this article themselves, and it expresses their own opinions. The author is not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). The author has no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

Northland Power’s (NPIFF) CEO John Brace on Q1 2015 Results – Earnings Call Transcript

Executives John Brace – CEO Paul Bradley – CFO Sean Durfy – President and CDO Analysts Nelson Ng – RBC Capital Markets Paul Lechem – CIBC Rupert Merer – National Bank Sean Steuart – TD Securities Matthew Akman – Scotiabank Steven Paget – FirstEnergy Northland Power, Inc. ( OTCPK:NPIFF ) Q1 2015 Earnings Conference Call May 12, 2015 10:00 AM ET Operator Welcome to the Northland Power Conference Call to Discuss the 2015 First Quarter Results. During the presentation all participants will be in listen-only mode. [Operator Instructions] As a reminder this conference is being recorded Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 10 AM Easter Time. Conducting this call for Northland Power are John Brace, Chief Executive Officer; Sean Durfy, President and Chief Development Officer; Paul Bradley, Chief Financial Officer; and Adam Beaumont, Director of Finance. Northland Power management has asked me to caution you that their summary of results and responses to your questions may contain forward-looking statements that include assumptions and are subject to various risks. Actual results may differ materially from management’s expected or forecasted results. Please read the forward-looking statements section in yesterday’s news release announcing Northland Power’s results and be guided by its content in making investment decisions or recommendations. The release is available at www.northlandpower.ca. I’d now like turn the call over to John Brace. Please go ahead. John Brace Thank you very much operator and good morning everyone. The first couple of months since 2015 have been some of the positive in over 25 years at Northland Power. Our transformation from an independent generally focused power producer into an international developer and owner of sustainable energy infrastructure is well underway. We have long defined our business strategy as one of focusing on measured growth that enables us to deliver sustainable returns. Our activity and result so far in 2015 demonstrate that we are applying the strategy with equal parts of boldness and diligence. Paul will provide more detail on our financial results shortly but I can tell you that while our quarterly adjusted EBITDA was marginally lower than the same period last year is result of us taking advantage to some exceptional opportunities in the natural gas market due to high prices last winter our overall results were in line with our expectations. The first three months of 2015 saw a successfully complete over $2 billion of debt and equity financing or taking big steps forward when our European offshore wind portfolio and Ontario renewable projects. In March we closed financing on a total of €1.2 billion for a second 332 megawatt offshore wind project called Nordsee One located approximately 40 kilometers off the coast of Germany in the North Sea. We also closed financing on our 100 megawatt Grand Bend wind project located in Ontario with the projected cost of $384 million. Both Nordsee One and Grand Band are now under construction. Construction is also progressing well on our 600 megawatt Gemini offshore wind project in the Netherlands and our four remaining Ground-mounted Solar projects here in Ontario above which I’ll talk more shortly. Our 2015 focus is on successfully delivering or advancing all of these projects and so far so good I look forward to provide any more detailed presentation on our progress at our upcoming AGM on May 19th I can tell you in the mean time that all construction projects are proceeding well. On Gemini production at the 200 kilometers of electrical interconnection cables which you can see illustrated on the covers of our 2014 annual report is nearing completion and installation out at sea has already started. Almost 90% of the 150 monopile foundations for the turbines have been made in progress on the two offshore high voltage substation platforms is significant. The remainder of the project components are in production and onshore construction is also taking place. As part of our due diligence for Northland and under our rules as members of the Gemini Board of Directors both Paul Bradley and I have been visiting some of the Gemini manufacturing facilities. These have included the electric cable, monopiles, transition pieces, offshore platforms and foundations and the turbine manufacturing facilities. I can tell you that seeing the scale and size of the equipment being produced and the huge number of components that have already been made is extremely impressive. What is most important however is that overall things are progressing well and so far both Gemini and Nordsee are proceeding on schedule and on budget. We are creating infrastructure that will meet the electricity needs of millions of people for many years into the future while supporting the Europe Union’s clean energy transformation. We see a healthy appetite and therefore significant opportunities for this version in technology. In fact a new report from global data indicates that Germany is set to overtake the UK as the global leader for annual offshore wind turbine installations in 2015 with over 2,000 megawatts estimated to be added this year. Globally annual offshore wind installations are expected to more than double and we are excited to be a part of this growing industry. And here at home, well on the smaller scale we’re also building important clean energy infrastructure at our Grand Ben Wind project which is a 50-50 partnership with two first nations. Excavation has already begun along the underground transmission line, the turbines and other major components are on order. Construction will continue throughout 2015 and the project is anticipated to start producing electricity in the first half of 2016. Finally, progress on our four remaining Ground-Mounted Solar Projects, divide into two parts. First is the completion of the construction. As we told you on our last call, Ganotec Inc. has taken over construction on the remaining four projects. Construction on all four sites is progressing well, and they are expected to be complete in 2015. Second, thus a situation with the original contractor H.B. White; whom we terminated at the end of last year for breach of the EPC contract. Expectedly the wait in the number of subcontractors have filed liens and claims on the projects and we have filed our own claims against White for cost, losses and damages for breaches of the contract. It will undoubtedly take some time for these legal matters to be sorted out and we are convinced of the legitimacy of our position. In the meantime the projects will be finished and in production. Despite these challenges, we remain confident that overall, our Ground-Mounted Solar portfolio will meet return expectations and deliver attractive reliable results over the long term. Moving to an update on our long term assets, I’d also like to provide to you an update of the global adjustment phase that affects three of our interior power projects agreements. Back in March, the quarter rolled in favor of Northland and other power producers in relation to the escalators in our power purchase agreements. Disappointingly but I suppose unsurprisingly the ruling was appealed by the contract counterparty. We feel confident that the courts will continue to rule in our favor as the case progresses through the legal system. I am also pleased to remind you that our Kirkland Lake facility has already signed a new 20-year contract for the 30 megawatt gas peaking portion of that generation station. The details of an agreement for the final base load gas field portion of the facility are being papered. We are also working trying to ensure a long future for our Kirkland facility, however as power purchase agreements extension expired as of midnight last night at which time we cease to generating electricity. We’ve not yet permanently shut down the facility or decreased our efforts towards attaining a contract renewal or further extension. Our staff remained employed as we continue to do everything we can to secure a new agreement. We have the support of the community in the region. The facility is critically important to North Eastern Ontario and its forestry industries and our host community in Kirkland. We will continue to work hard to find a solution, building a sustainable future for our host communities translates to a sustainable investment for our shareholders. On that note the quarter has seen significant activity from the financing perspective. As part of the over $2 billion in debt and equity financing that I mentioned at the start, we successfully completed over $400 million of convertible debentures and common share offerings during the first quarter. The proceeds were used to help fund our investments in the Nordsee One and Grand Bend projects. In February, we closed the sale of our interest in the Frampton wind project for net proceeds of approximately $10 million. To achieve our continued growth objectives we are applying our proven strategies on an ever increasing scale. The result is in increasingly diverse portfolio of clean and creating a long term energy assets. I would now like to turn the microphone over to Paul for further discussion on our financial results. Paul Bradley Thank you, John. I’d like to extend my thanks to everybody for joining us this morning. As John mentioned it’s been extremely busy quarter for us. Last night, Northland Power released its 2015 first quarter results. Northland’s plant operations for the most part met or exceeded our expectations for the quarter, with the company generating $97 million of adjusted EBITDA. As John noted, the first quarter of last year that’s 2014, produced exceptionally strong results. The period of high natural gas prices provide us with opportunities to curtail electricity production and resell the natural gas at certain facilities, which created unexpectedly high natural gas resell margins. So as those spikes and gas prices did not recur this year, Northland’s performance reflected the more normal level of operations resulting in a 5% decrease in adjusted EBITDA from the same quarter last year and free cash flow down $50 million, 11% lower. The sites of the non-recurring gas resale’s margins, other key factors that affected our adjusted EBITDA for the quarter included the following. Higher interest income earned on Northland’s portion of the Gemini subordinated debt, inclusion of Mclean’s which became operational in May 2014 as well as the non-recurrence of the write-off of deferred development cost into 2014. These increases to adjusted EBITDA were more than offset by several items. First a onetime charge associated with an IESO generator cost recovery program for Thorold. Second, lower performance incentive fees earned from Cochrane and Kirkland Lake, also may be due to the 2014 gas resale margins. Third, lower investment income largely due to higher dividends for Panda-Brandywine in 2014. And lastly increased corporate management and administration cost. Northland’s free cash flow are 50 million for the quarter were 7 million lower than the same quarter in 2014 for the same reason as a decrease in adjusted EBITDA and largely due to the high level gas resale in 2014. Other factors contributing the lower free cash flow over 2014 include an increase in net interest expense increase primarily due to the inclusion of interest on the claims and Ground-mounted Solar Phase II debt, interest on the convertible debentures from those issued in January and interest on Northland’s corporate term facility; also an increase in scheduled debt repayments from these new debt facilities. These net decreases in free cash flow were partially offset by the net proceeds from the sale of the Frampton wind farm in 2015. Our dividend payout ratio for the quarter was 81% versus 63% in 2014 on a total dividend basis, including the effective dividends invested through Northland’s DRIP program, the cash dividend payout was 60% compared to 49% in the first quarter of 2014. The increase in payout ratio reflects the decreased free cash flow and the new share capital issuances to fund Nordsee One, Grand Bend and in Gemini projects. This is in line with our expectations as we execute on our development and construction program. The GAAP net loss of 26 million exceeded the prior year primarily as a result of the non-cash fair value accounting loss on interest rate swaps at Gemini and Nordsee One. This net loss does not reflect the economic substance of the projects, because the interest rate swaps are used to effectively fix the interest rates at Gemini and Nordsee One. These fair value adjustments are non-cash items that will reverse over time and have no impact on the cash obligations of Northland towards projects. Turning to Northland’s financing activities this quarter. We have continued the vigorous pace of 2014. In the first three months of the year we completed over $2 billion of debt and equity financings as we advanced our projects into construction. To assistant funding our Nordsee One and Grand Bend wind projects, we issued as convertible debenture offering in the amount of 158 million and a common share offering with gross proceeds of 281 million which includes the private placement of 50 million from our Founder and Chairman, Jim Temerty. The funds will also be used to refurnish working capital and general corporate purposes. Approximately 70% of Nordsee One’s €1.2 million project cost will be provided from a non-recourse bank loan for multiple international commercial lenders. Reflecting the strength of the project the financing was over-subscribed and completed in only six months from the commencement of the bank debt process. Late in March, we also completed financing on the Grand Bend wind project. The total project cost is expected to be 384 million and approximately 85% of the projects required financing has been provided by an institutional style fixed rate amortizing loan. The total co-generation bank term loan coming due in September was refinanced for 183 million with its maturity extended to March 2030, with this financing Northland has extinguished all of its project refinancing liquidity risk and has locked in all interest rates towards project debt. Northland also entered into foreign exchange contracts to effectively fix the foreign exchange conversion rate on substantially all projected euro denominated cash inflows from Nordsee One over the fixed cash period. As you can see it was extremely busy quarter for Northland’s financing team. For our financial outlook for 2015 Northland continues to expect our adjusted EBITDA to be in the range of 380 million to 400 million in 2015. We are currently guiding towards the lower end of the range allowing unfavorable outcomes of the contract extension of Cochrane and potentially different interim arrangements on the appeal of the global adjustment court case and should these two items come out as we don’t expect then we have some allowance at our guidance for that. For payout ratio in 2015 we continue to expect the ratio to be in the range of 100% to 115% of free cash flow on a total dividend basis. As we have said in the past Northland’s payout ratio is expected to exceed 100% on a total dividend basis, until Gemini and Nordsee are completed in 2017. On a net basis however, including the impact of reinvested dividends through the DRIP, we expect the cash dividends to be 75% to 85% of free cash flow. As demonstrated by all the financing activity this quarter, management’s continued objective is to effectively manage our balance sheet and minimize the amount of dilutive equity raised while prudently maintaining healthy credit metrics. And with that I will turn the call back to John for concluding remarks before taking your questions. John Brace Thank you, Paul. I believe our results this quarter demonstrate significant progress towards achieving our 2015 commitments. Results are gratifying to see the Northland team’s efforts acknowledged by the international finance and business community through awards from a number of prestigious publications. Some of these we told you about on our last call but here is a summary of all of the awards, Projects Finance International, Power Deal of the year Europe awarded to our Gemini project, Infrastructure Journal and Project Finance Magazine, Win Deal of the Year Europe and overall winner for Europe and Africa awarded to Gemini, Netherlands Canadian chamber of Commerce Northland named 2014 business of the year, Environmental Finance Win Deal of the year of the year 2015 awarded to Gemini and Investor Relations Magazine awarded Paul Bradley, best Investor Relations Canada by our CFO. It has been over 25 years since we opened our first facility in Cochrane, Ontario and we have since transformed into an international power producer. We are now in the period of significant growth and we are focused on successfully delivering in that growth while continuing to deliver on our commitments to our investors. We believe our ability to marry entrepreneurialism and prudence that are focused on effectively managing risk will hoping to forge the worldwide shifts to sustainable energy is helping to divine Northland as a leader an innovator and a company to watch. We have big things ahead of us and we look forward to showing you what were capable of. As we grow, we remained focused on our core promise to deliver sustainable value that our shareholders can depend on today and well into the future. That includes our formal remarks. And would be pleased to take your questions at this time. Operator if you can please hand over questions. Question-and-Answer Session. Operator Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen [Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from the line of Nelson Ng with RBC Capital Markets. Please proceed with your question. Nelson Ng Great, thanks. Good morning everyone. Just the quick question on Cochrane, so if the facility stops running for period until hopefully get another contract are there any issues with the biomass or a gas supply and do you expect the facility to be running mainly on gas if it becomes bigger? John Brace There is several parts to answer my question like Nelson first we are doing our best to make sure that gas supplies and wood supplies will still be available to us when we get to start our facility up again if the plan were to continue on operating as it was than it would be gas and biomass that as it has always been, if negotiations with the government were to proceed in a fashion that it would be turned into a partly peaking facility then one could expect that the gas part of that would be that probably the biomass would continue on in more or less a base load mode we are making sure as from a contractual point of view and a physical point of view that we laying up the facility in the interim period here while we’re now running to be capable of generating well long with into the future. Nelson Ng Okay, thanks. And then I have a few questions about Nordsee One, in terms of send we on the turbines I’m sure that banks are pretty comfortable with the turbines given the financial close has been achieved but can you provide some color in terms of like from your perspective in terms of like the technology risk like I understand the turbines are pretty big like 6.5 megawatts and it’s not that common out there right now and I’m not sure if the website is updated but I think Senvion’s website indicates that there is about 4 off shore in projects with those blades operating so can you just give me a sense of how your perspective of the technology risk? John Brace This very part answer with slide going to a longer one Nelson was there were very comfortable with the turbines it’s in fact one of them Senvion is one of the larger turbine producers for the off shore wind industry. The turbine were using is already been deployed in other wind farms and is in operation and so and has a good track record so there is one known issue to do with the bearing’s on the turbine and Senvion has both the short term fix and a long term program in place for dealing with that and you can bet that in our contract to Senvion their contractual provisions they relate to keeping us immune as it were from any difficulties with the bearing which I think frankly reflects Senvion’s confidence in the future and also center bridge their recent purchase risk confidence in Senvion as a long term performer in the off shore wind industry. On top of that off course as you mentioned the banks and the banks due diligent engineers have been all through it and Senvion’s turbines are the ones we are using for our project and their prior track record come up with good marks. Nelson Ng I see. And then just one kind of follow up question on Senvion, so you mentioned that they were recently acquired I think earlier this year for 1.2 billion. Can you talk about counter party risk and any changes in the direction of the company or the company’s strategy? Paul Bradley Yes. I think Nelson net net we were positively impressed by the [Centerbridge] acquisition, Senvion has always been — and for those who don’t know Senvion is rename of REpower and everyone knows REpower is one of the first turbine companies in the wind business and they’ve always been a consistent performer year-over-year and a very solid technology. With [Centerbridge’s] acquisition it basically took a very weak and unhealthy pattern out of the picture and the concern always was hate as the company get rated or the assets gate rated to help the weak pattern. The acquisition and we were pretty to a number of the dates around the acquisition from both [Centerbridge] and the company, but the company actually has a number of protections in place that put us in a much better position overall. And also the acquisition price reflects the strength of Senvion’s ability to produce income. So I think once we got through all of our due diligence of the acquisition we were net net very happy about the file. Nelson Ng Thanks, Paul. And then just one last question relaying to your general overhead cost I think management and [win] cost have increased, I was just wondering in terms of I guess directionally do you expect those cost to continue to increase over the next few years with the two offshore wind projects I guess being commissioned in 2017. And then also I wanted to ask whether the development cost will kind of ramp up going forward and whether you’ve started spending development cost in Latin America yet? Paul Bradley I’ll talk about the first one, we’ve been over the past year but probably back end loaded to earlier in 2015 has been building in the necessary infrastructure to take us from kind of a fairly small Canadian base company to a company that’s positioning itself to be powerhouse in a much broader market and much bigger project. So that as you can imagine take some infrastructure from systems and compliance and all kinds of internal folks. So you’re seeing us walk away through that I certainly wouldn’t want — all believe for a moment that’s a trend but there is a bit of the step that we’re going through at the current time for the overhead cost. We’re seeing some good productivity coming out of it and from the risk management standpoint and from other elements that it’s the right thing to do and it was time for us to do some of it. So period no time like the present to make those investments. I’ll let Sean cover from the development side, Sean Durfy, our President and Chief Development Officer. Sean Durfy Thanks, Paul. Nelson, from the perspective of development costs our costs are in line and somewhat lower actually due to development expenses than we had last year. And we’re also very prudent in how we go about spending development cost once we get further into the development cycle. When it comes to Latin America we’re still very much in the origination stage of development so very little excessive cost going into that, in other words we don’t have foreign deals yet. So we’re still very much in the origination phase so lower expense cost. Operator Our next question comes from the line of Paul Lechem with CIBC. Please proceed with your question. Paul Lechem Thank you. Good morning. I’m just wondering for Cochrane, if the plant remain shut down for the balance of Q2, what should we expect in terms of cost just to maintain that facility until potentially a new deal is struck? John Brace Paul, we’re not going to nearly go into that I mean Cochrane is less than 2% of our current take on everything no matter what you do to it. So we haven’t really tried to pull us out as you can imagine there is some competitive attention here with our off take or not disclosing orderly on our financial information so if don’t mind we’ll passing that question. Paul Lechem Fair enough. On the Brand Bend still, bit of an update in the last call you gave an update — expected to build the project, is that number that you gave last quarter that still what you believe you can bring these facilities in under. John Brace Yes. Paul Lechem The 75 to that 13 project is still help? John Brace Yes. Paul Lechem Okay. And lastly on Gemini, can you give us over the next few months what milestone should we expect maybe between now and the next call on the Gemini construction. Thanks. Paul Bradley The main thing that will happen on July 1st under our environmental permit were allowed to start installing the monopile foundations for the turbines. So on our next call presumably we’ll be able to tell you something about the number of foundations that have already been late. In addition to that there should be fair amount of the offshore cable, the export cable about 200 kilometers of undersea cable I mentioned in the earlier remarks laid on the ocean floor and depending on the exact timing we may be close to sending the offshore platforms out to sea but can’t remember when our next call is actually scheduled for the date, it’s August so they should be out. Operator Our next question comes from the line of Rupert Merer with National Bank. Please proceed with your question. Rupert Merer So looking at your construction pipeline as a few projects moved to financial close. [I imagine] you put all your equity into those projects today, is that correct? John Brace That’s correct. Let`s say typically Rupert the banks insisted the equity goes in first. Rupert Merer Right, so sounds like your approach going well, so given where you are now and what you’ve learned over the last few quarters, what keeps you up at [night] today with those projects if anything and already you see [indiscernible] risky or you’re scheduled on budget today? John Brace That’s pretty wide reaching question. I think from my perspective, we are confident that all of the projects which are under-construction will meet their schedules and budgets. What we have to do as the owners, is make sure in the case of Gemini and Nordsee, whether actually large teams of people that are the owners side of the table over in Europe watching that the contractors do what they’re supposed to do with a right degree of quality and the right rate level of health and safety and environmental protection and cost control that the projects unfold. So from Northland’s point of view our role to a large degree is ensuring that our two teams of 40 odd people in Europe perform and watch the contractor the way they are supposed to do. In the case of North America here for Grand Bend’s we have a classical balance plan contract with [indiscernible] and we are — our role is much closer to the home in terms of watching them and making sure they do what they are supposed to do. And off course in the [indiscernible] we are in slightly different relationship now with [indiscernible] than we were with White, so we are paying close attention to scheduling cost on those projects. So the shorter form version of it is, I wouldn’t say, it keeps me up at night in a frightened state by any means but as owners, we have to make sure that we absorb these projects and influence these projects to best we can to make sure they stay on schedule and on budget. And off course overwriting everything is the need and the absolute necessity of clean health and safety records and environmental records on those projects. Rupert Merer Yes, great, thanks, just a quick follow up on Nelson’s question, in early classification of Nordsee and Grand Bend, from development of TPNA, will you see a decline in your development cost for the rest of the year? John Brace I think, remember our business is one big pipeline. Absolutely after continue to develop, but we do it prudently, right now we don’t have any projects in the stage of where Nordsee was six months ago, so we’ll continue on the origination side and continue developing deals and really it’s the Nordsee shows the most promise over the short term. So our development budget is what it is and as I said it’s a touch lower than it was the previous year. Operator Our next question comes from the line of Sean Steuart with TD Securities. Please proceed with your question. Sean Steuart Couple of questions, with respect to Phase III of the Solar, I think the wording in the MD&A was you’re not in a position to determine expected final returns but you do expect it to reach minimum hurdles. I guess just with products underway here and it seems like a fair degree certainty on CapEx. I’m surprised you aren’t able to nail that in, is it just with respect to the ongoing legal proceedings with the former contractor? John Brace Yes, that’s a main part Sean, as in our view we’re very convinced of the legitimacy of our position as I mentioned earlier on, it’s how much money that White ends up pawning up to the table and [that is, we’ll be able] to fight to get there, so that’s a fairly uncertain number at this stage. Paul Bradley And that’s why we put the outside barrier number in there Sean, just to let people get a sense of where we believe the worst outcome comes and then Sean, we believe we’ll do better than that, but we feel it’s responsible for the outside number. Sean Steuart Okay, understood. And then on Kirkland Lake, can you give us any context on the economics for the TPA for the 30 megawatt peaker? John Brace With rather which we get the whole package done because we’re in the middle of a very commercial sensitive negotiations, so let us defer that if you don’t mind Sean? Operator [Operator instructions] Our next question comes from the line of Matthew Akman with Scotiabank. Please proceed with your question. Matthew Akman Good morning. Paul I wonder if you could just recap the [thorough] refinance terms versus prior any advantages in the refinance terms relative to what it was in place? Paul Bradley Yes, so basically a largely awash, we didn’t over finance it, [indiscernible] plenty of money out and if you realize the interest rate had been swapped out there really was no gain on the underline and [indiscernible] was done at a time when spreads were at historical low so the spreads were ted higher than that we had before but we are also able to pick that up in better amortization of the final debt so from a free cash flow perspective the financing kind of kept us about the same maybe as snick below where you were but nothing was mentioning. Matthew Akman Good was the amortization disclose? Paul Bradley Well. Typically we do disclose it I don’t believe we’ve come out with an area since we’ve done that as typically we will put it there but it’s basically closer at the end of the life with the PPA along with CAF I think if you go back if you want to get the exact one you can pull out what the institutional change was amendment [Indiscernible] Matthew Akman Okay. Thank you. In terms of the FX hedges and the projects finance on North Sea can you make any comments about where you hedged out versus your expectations for returns and your project analysis going in. Paul Bradley While we hedge we typically look at our projects pre-hedged only to keep the discipline of trying to make the hedging decision as a corporate decision not a project decision because it’s really the corporate investors that are enjoying those cash flows not the project per say. What I can tell you is that the euro cad forward swap rates tend to still be very favorable versus just a plain forward spot rates so in other words we will have picked up a fair bit of return over the course of time if you kind of take the swap and marry it up with the actual project cash flows but again I would like to reiterate that we keep the corporate hedging transactions we try to keep that little bit separate from the actual project transactions. Matthew Akman Okay, thanks for that. And finally is it too early to talk about contingencies on Gemini and North Sea and whether you have started to chug and to those at all at a normal pace or do you waits for another 3 months to 6 months to start hearing about that? John Brace By thinking the case with North Sea it’s too early for sure in the case with Gemini and we’ve been under way for a year now there has been a small use of contingency but nothing significant at this point in time. Operator Our next question comes from the line of Steven Paget with FirstEnergy. Please proceed with your question. Steven Paget Thank you and good morning. Gentlemen off shore wind went from a technology or skill set that was expensive to something that was economic and could be brought in on time on budget and that’s when Gemini and North Sea team in the picture am I correct. Unidentified Company Representative Yes. Unidentified Analyst So what three technologies are coming in that you will be looking at as in that off shore wind renewable or power generation technologies that are just becoming economic and you saw. Paul Bradley I’ll start and then John can jump in. I think the Steven we are sort of 15 years into the commercial application of off shore wind so it’s still a very young industry and I think there is incredible potential still in the off shore wind space be it in the North Sea another parts of the world so our concentrated development efforts have been continue to look at that technology the company was started on the basis of thermal technologies and we still see plenty of opportunities there as well and off course with solar we’ve got our first solar plant in Latin American countries, solar is becoming closer to grid parity and a lot of opportunity there as well, so leading edge technologies I don’t know I could let John answer it but from my perspective and a development perspective I think we got lots of opportunity in those three technological fields. Unidentified Company Representative Well just before [Indiscernible] oracle of the future I just like to remind everybody that we are kind of an infrastructure company so we aren’t even looking to necessarily be cutting edge on new technologies we to your point Steven we did enter an off shore wind when it was at the point that we felt the maturity was sufficient and probably the rest of the world thinks it’s a bit early and there end lies the superior returns that you can get at a certain technology but as when it comes to things like wave technology or some of the storage ideas are out there I think you would certainly wait for them to mature that before you saw a stuff filing in those areas and now John Brace. John Brace I think maybe on the one thing to add to elaborate a bid on something Paul just mentioned storage as a lot of stuff going on and storage with all search of different technologies but I would just like to remind everyone it doesn’t need to be new technology to solve the misuse of the day and those are of project which is from storage are very old technology or very proven technology and wonderful project so you don’t really need new technologies to move the ball down the court on the developments and improvement of the electricity generating system. Operator Mr. Brace there are no further questions at this time. I will turn the call back to you. John Brace Thank you very much operator and everyone for joining us today. We will hold our next call following the release of our second quarter results in August and we look forward to talking to you then. Thank you. Operator Ladies and gentlemen, that does conclude the conference call for today. We thank you for your participation and have a pleasant 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!

U.S. Geothermal’s (HTM) Management Discusses on Q4 2014 Results – Earnings Call Transcript

U.S. Geothermal Inc. (NYSEMKT: HTM ) Q4 2014 Earnings Conference Call March 17, 2015 11:00 AM ET Executives Douglas J. Glaspey – President and Chief Operating Officer Kerry D. Hawkley – Chief Financial Officer Jonathan Zurkoff – Treasurer and Executive Vice President of Finance Analysts James P. McIlree – Chardan Capital Markets, LLC Operator Greetings, ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the U.S. Geothermal’s 2014 Year-End Earnings Results Conference Call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. A question-and-answer session will follow the formal presentation. [Operator Instructions] As a reminder, this conference is being recorded. It is now pleasure to introduce your host Mr. Doug Glaspey. Thank you, sir. You may begin. Douglas J. Glaspey Thank you, operator, and good morning, everybody. Thank you all for joining us on today’s call and for your continuing interest in U.S. Geothermal. My name is Doug Glaspey, I am the President and Chief Operating Officer. Dennis Gilles, our CEO is not able to join us today, he is recovering from recent surgery, we do expect to have him back in the office next week. Joining me on today’s call will be Kerry Hawkley, our Chief Financial Officer and Jonathan Zurkoff, our Executive Vice President of Finance. Jonathan will be presenting Dennis’s prepared comments summarizing the highlights of the year. Before we go any further I would like to make a note that on our March 4, news release regarding earnings call there was a typo some people have noticed that, its was a 100 megawatts production for our growth strategy to 2020, our plan has not changed it is 200 megawatts of growth by 2020. So I just want to make sure everybody understood that we hadn’t changed our strategy. The Company’s performance in 2014 was strong with our operating revenue up 13% compared to 2013. Adjusted EBITDA was up 12% over 2013 and net income up approximately 263% over 2013. Our plans continue to outperform industry standards for operational availability and we are focused on brining the next phase of growth to our shareholders. Kerry Hawkley will now provide you with a summary of our financial results for 2014. Kerry? Kerry D. Hawkley Thank you, Doug. And good morning to our listeners on this call. Before beginning, we would like to remind you that the information provided during this call may contain forward-looking statements relating to current expectations, estimates, forecast and projections about future events that are forward-looking as defined in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements generally relate to the Company’s plans, objectives and expectations for future operations, and are based on management’s current estimates and projections of future results or trends. Actual future results may differ materially from those projected as a result of certain risks and uncertainties. During the call we will present non-GAAP financial measures such as EBITDA, adjusted EBITDA, and adjusted net income, reconciliation to the most directly comparable GAAP measures and management’s reasons for presenting such information is set forth in the press release that was issued last night. Because these measures are not calculated in accordance with U.S. GAAP, it should not be considered in isolation from our financial statements prepared in accordance with GAAP. I’ll now discuss the financial statements of U.S. Geothermal for the year ended December 31, 2014. On our balance sheet, total assets are at $232.9 million. Our total liabilities are $102.0 million. Non-controlling interests are at $46.4 million, and our net stockholders equity is now at $84.5 million. On our statement of operations our 12-month net income of $11.6 million in 2014 is comparable to the $1.9 million for the same period last year. And adjusted net income for 2014 eliminating the deferred tax asset gain in the impairment loss for Granite Creek is $1.8 million. For the year revenues were up $3.6 million or 13% over 2013. Energy production was up 29,401 megawatt hours or 9.5%. Plant production expenses were up $1.8 million, primarily insurance and maintenance costs. Drilling costs in 2014 that were capitalized were at El Ceibillo, San Emidio Phase II and Crescent Valley. The interest expense at San Emidio $319,000 over last year, primarily because a portion of the interest in 2013 was capitalized. This will have a direct impact to the net income attributable to U.S. Geothermal since San Emidio 100% owned by U.S. Geothermal. Our stock-based compensation is up $583,000 due to options in shares granted to our employees, executives, and directors in April of 2014. These costs are non-cash and align the interest of our employees, officers and directors with shareholders. We incurred exploration drilling costs during the year of $449,000 at our Gerlach Project. We’ve recognized a loss of $452,000 on an impairment associated with our decision to abandon the development of our Granite Creek Project. We also recognized a gain of 10.3 million on a deferred tax assets that we have recorded based on our more likely than not criteria. Adjusted EBITDA for 2014 was $17.2 million, versus $15.3 million in 2013. Our statement of cash flow, cash and cash equivalents at the beginning of the year were $28.7 million. 12 months, cash generated by operations were $12.8 million. Notes payments reduced our total debt by $4.6 million. Payment to our non-controlling interest partner Enbridge were $15 million. We acquired the WGP Geysers project for $6.8 million, inclusive of legal cost. We capitalized drilling at San Emidio, El Ceibillo and Crescent Valley this year and that totaled $3.7 million in. Through the exercise of warrants and options we received $1.6 million in cash, so at the end of the year our cash and cash equivalents were $13.0 million. Please note that our exploration development budget for 2015 requires approximately $5.5 million in cash from U.S. Geothermal, which can be funded internally by cash flows from operations. On our statement of changes in stockholders equity, we’ve added the net income of $11.6 million during the year should be noted that the accumulated deposit is now reflected net of tax or $19.3 million. Shares of common stock issued upon exercise of stock purchases warrants were $2.6 million, shares of common stock issued upon exercise of stock options were $1.1 million. We granted 559,000 shares of common stock to our employees, executives, and directors in Q2 that had a one-year restriction. We just have cash of $15 million that was distributed to Enbridge, we issued 693,000 shares in Q4 to acquire 100% of the shares of Earth Power Resources. So at the end of the year 12/31/2014 are issued an outstanding shares in our totals of 107.0 million shares. Now as we mentioned briefly in the third quarter earnings call regarding our provision for income tax we have now met to more likely to not criteria set for recording the deferred tax asset on the balance sheet. During the fourth quarter, the company discontinued the 100% valuation allowance on our deferred tax asset. The impact to the financial statements net of tax on the income in 2014 was $10.3 million. In other words, we have been profitable now for over two years and we anticipate being profitable going forward as our projects are reliable and the revenues are predictable. Our deferred tax assets will offset future taxes and same as cash. Also in response to the apparent confusion noted during the last earnings call we have added additional disclosure on Page 85 in the MD&A regarding the net income attributable to the non-controlling interest and the net income attributable to U.S. Geothermal and its shareholders, which we hope provide you the clarity thought. The table on Page 85 shows the contribution our three operating projects provides the net income attributable to U.S. Geothermal and it also shows the cost associated with our exploration activities, corporate costs, the deferred tax asset gain and the impairment loss. You will see that Neal Hot Springs contributed $5.9 million, San Emidio contributed $0.5 million, Raft River contributed 300,000 for a total contributed to U.S. Geothermal of $6.7 million from these three projects. From that exploration activities and corporate overhead cost $4.9 million if you exclude the deferred tax and impairment adjustments. This last category includes the Company’s cost of existence including the listed on two stock exchanges legal accounting and professional fees, filings with government agencies, stock-based compensation in the costs of evaluating and developing new projects. These costs are almost 100% U.S. Geothermal costs and reduce the net income attributable to U.S. Geothermal. However as we grow the company by adding income generating projects in the future, this category will not increased significantly from current levels. Allowing the net income from the new projects to increase the bottom line almost dollar per dollar, we believe that company as well-positioned to take advantage of many future opportunities. Thank you for your continued interest in U.S. Geothermal and I will turn the call back over to Doug. Douglas J. Glaspey Thank you, Kerry. I will now provide the highlights of our operations performance for this fourth quarter and for the full-year 2014 as well as the summary of our current development activities. Generation for the fourth quarter from all three plants was 96,831 megawatt hours, and that’s compares 96,508 megawatt hours in the fourth quarter of 2013. Generation for the year 2014 totaled 339,086 megawatt hours, compared to 309,687 megawatt hours for 2013, which represents a 9.5% increase in generation year-over-year. The fourth quarter is typically one of our best generation quarters of the year as you all know, due to the cooler winter temperatures. But I will note, that while the East has had a very cold winter, the West is actually had a relatively mild winter. At Neal Hot Springs, generation for the quarter was 54,472 megawatt hours with average hourly generation of 25.08 net megawatts hours for hour of operation. The facility operated at 98.3% availability for the fourth quarter and 98.5% availability for the year, excluding scheduled maintenance hours. Generation for 2014 at Neal was 183,394 megawatt hours, compared to 155,428 megawatt hours in 2013 an 18% increase year-over-year at Neal Hot Springs. We’re proud to say that the geothermal reservoir at Neal continues to outperform our reservoir model, with over two years of stable temperature and flow rate. At San Emidio, our generation for the quarter was 21,745 megawatt hours with average hourly generation of 9.93 net megawatt hours per hour. Operating availability was 99.2% for the fourth quarter and 98.5% for the year, again excluding scheduled maintenance and hours. Generation for the year was 76,894 megawatt hours compared to generation of 76,697 megawatt hours in 2013. You can see that San Emidio has reached its plateau on this particular case, we think we will see a little bit better generation this year because of the addition of Well 6121 that was added in September and it increased the brand temperature feeding the plant by 3.3 degrees. San Emidio plant of course continues to run very smoothly, we’re very pleased with the plant and the reservoir remains within its projected parameters. At Raft River generation was 20,614 megawatt hours for the quarter with an average hourly generation of 9.59 net megawatts. Raft River operated at 97.3% availability during the fourth quarter and 99.5% for the year. Generation for 2014 was 78,798 megawatt hours compared to generation of 77,561 megawatt hours in 2013. Raft River which is our oldest facility continues to operate at consistent, high availability, with stable generation. I will note that Raft River will have an extended maintenance outage of 14 days in the second quarter of 2015 and it will be undergoing its first turbine overhaul since the plant started in 2008. We are very pleased with the performance of all three plants during the fourth quarter and for all of 2014. Our operations team has produced outstanding operation availability at all of the facilities which equates to our high level of power generation. On the development front, at San Emidio Phase II, the project continues to be dependent upon successful drilling and expansion of the currently known geothermal resource. Before we make the decision to move forward with building the second power plant we have to be successful with drilling additional production and injection wells that will support that second plant. We drilled two new wells in the South Zone during 2014 and expanded the high temperature anomaly farther South from the current well field. We did not plan commercial permeability in either one of those wells, we did find increasing temperature and it’s an important indicator of an active geothermal system. This temperature data is in effect an arrow pointing toward a potential source of the geothermal flow path farther South and we are going follow up on it. The South Zone area is held by federal leases and it takes anextraordinary amount of time to permit drilling activities on these lands. We are currently in the process of permitting a series of temperature gradient wells to extent our information on the area. And if the temperature gradient wells outline an attractive targets, we’ll follow up with observation wells or slim holes as they are known, to explore for the source of the high temperature fluid. This is an iterative process and it takes time, but after finding fluid temperatures of over 321 degrees in the South Zone it’s well worth following up. During the year we also constructed cross tie pipeline between the Phase I plant and the Phase II project area that was built in the third quarter and began producing fluid from well 61-21 early in the fourth quarter. This was all part of a long-term flow test for the South Zone. This well remains in production as we collect reservoir data and the plus side is it also increased our generation from the Phase I plan. Through the year we continued on with the interconnection studies with the Phase II plants and received the first phase study called the System Impact Study back from NV Energy on December 24. We might recall we’ve already have 16 megawatts of reserve transmission of San Emidio and we are requesting an additional 3.9 megawatts in order to accommodate a second full-size plan. The System Impact Study indicated that the additional 3.9 megawatt of transmission can be added to the NVE transmission system with a cost of approximately $270,000. A second phase study called the Facilities Study was started by NV Energy in January 2015. Now this series of studies for transmission happens at all of our projects it’s a FERC mandated process and all of the utilities have to go through it, we have to pay for everyone of these studies. So it just one of the areas in power generation that we have to go through. NV Energy issued a request for proposal on October 1, for 100 megawatts of renewable energy that would be contracted in 2015 for consumption in Southern Nevada. We responded to the RFP with a proposal for San Emidio Phase II on November 12. In early December NV Energy asked the Nevada Public Utilities Commission to allow them to combine the 2014 and 2015 renewable RFPs for a total of 200 megawatts under request. This request was approved and subsequent to the end of the year, we resubmitted our proposal for the Phase II plant and were notified on March 3 that our bid was advanced to the initial shortlist for Geothermal projects. NV Energy schedule indicates that the anticipate selecting the final shortlist projects before the end of April. At El Ceibillo and Guatemala, early this year we completed nine temperature gradient wells at El Ceibillo. The wells were shallow from 650 to 1,300 feet deep and we found temperatures ranging from a 176 to 413 degrees Fahrenheit, extraordinarily high for this shallow of a well. Results, from these wells effectively moves a high temperature resource target area approximately half a kilometer Northwest of our initial target zone. This change in our target location required us to acquire additional service leases before we could enter into our next phase of drilling. Keep in mind that while we have a concession to exploit the Geothermal resource from the Guatemalan government, we also need to have leases for surface access from private individuals. After extensive negotiations we were able to finalize a lease on an additional 80 acres of land that covers us new target area on October 15. Once the lease was signed, we prepare to drill pads for our planned well EC2, which will be a car hole design exactly like the EC1 well we drilled in 2013. The planned depth for EC2 is 2,330 feet deep, at 600 to 1000 meters based on our temperature gradient wells we do have a target in mind as far as depth also for temperatures, so we are anxious to get started on this next well. Our next hurdle, however before we resume drilling is to secure approval from the Guatemalan government to modify our development schedule under the terms of the concession. Based on the new schedule and the subsequent delays for approval you might recall we’ve been seeking this approval for over a year. Our online data’s moved out from the second quarter of 2018. Again this schedule is contingent on the drilling, finding the commercial resource on the project, which we are optimistic about but given the results obtained from our recently completed temperature gradient drilling program. Also at El Ceibillo our memorandum of understanding for a PPA that was held by the project was based on our original development schedule for the project. We met with the purchaser through the year who is one of the largest power brokers in Central America. But due to the delays and approval of the modified development schedule with the Guatemalan Ministry of Energy the purchaser declined to extend the agreement. We are continuing discussions with them and are approaching other power consumers in Guatemala and Central America. Central America still has a growing demand for power especially base load type resources. So we believe there is a very good market in the area. At our WGP Geysers Project, we are continuing to pursue two paths for development of the project. To secure a new power purchase agreement for the sale of electricity and if we’re successful in doing so, we will construct a new power plant and sell energy or to produce steam for sale to one of the other power plant operators in the Geysers. We keep the project ready for either development path; a 12 month extension for the Sonoma County Conditional Use Permit to construct the power plant was applied for and approved in June. We are currently preparing to file a new Conditional Use Permit application in 2015 to maintain our readiness. We also filed a new transmission interconnection request to the California independent system operator so that the project can be placed in the transmission queue. Again, we have to go through these transmission studies to make sure our power plant built on the site can be interconnected into the transmission system, so we can deliver our power to a purchaser. Since the four production wells were drilled in 2008 and 2009 the previous owner did not conduct long enough flow tests for bankable reservoir model. An Air Quality Permit was obtained for extended flow test Sonoma County Air Quality Board and we have scheduled a flow test of the existing wells during the second quarter of 2015 that time is coming up very rapidly. Additionally, we’ve been doing engineering optimization studies of the power plant design, the new reservoir model will reflect the hybrid plant design and includes both water cooling in the summer and air cooling in the winter. Hybrid cooling will provide a significant increase from a traditional 20% increase into 65% in the volume of water available for injection back into the reservoir providing longer term stable steam production. This kind of optimization is critical to maximize the power generation from the property. Three California base requests for proposals for renewable energy PPAs were used at late 2014 and early 2015, submitted the WGP Geysers all three. We were not short listed on the first two and are waiting the results of the third. Direct bilateral discussions are also being held with both power purchasers and steam sale purchasers. The results of the flow test we have scheduled for this spring and the bankable reservoir model will play a key role in making the best decision on how the project is developed. Moving to the exploration front, at Crescent Valley in Nevada which is one of the properties we acquired in the Earth Power Resources acquisition, in late November we conducted a gravity survey in the area with Hot Springs and strong faulting with intense solidification that already had a number of temperature gradient wells drilled that exhibited high results. We located and permitted a well on private property an initiated drilling in December starting construction to qualifying the project for the 30% investment tax credit. The well is currently at just over 900 feet deep and we expect to complete it within this next month. Additional program of deep 1000 foot temperature gradient wells over much larger area are also planned for 2015. So we’re just starting to explore Crescent Valley it’s a great looking prospect. At Gerlach we completed well 1810A to a depth of 2889 feet that was completed in November. This well was a follow up on a historic well that was reported to have encountered a significant loss circulation zone at depth but had no temperature information. Gerlach is some of the largest Hot Springs in Nevada and geothermometer temperatures of 338 to 352 degrees Fahrenheit which made it an excellent exploration target. The well founds some modest production mid-depth but no permeability deep in the well and the maximum temperature found in the well was 275 degrees Fahrenheit. We are reviewing the results of further work at Gerlach but it will be dependent on additional funding from the joint venture. I will now turn the meeting over to Jonathan Zurkoff to provide Dennis’s remarks. Jonathan? Jonathan Zurkoff Thank you, Doug. I will summarize our notable highlights for 2014. First on our consolidated financial performance revenues were up 13% coming in for the year at $31 million, compared to $27.4 million for the 2013 period. Adjusted EBITDA of 12% for the year at $17.2 million compared to $15.3 million in 2013. EBITDA was up for the year yielding $14.9 million, compared to $14.5 million for 2013. Net income up 263% with the total for the year at $14.9 million compared to $4.1 million in 2013. Cash flow from operations was $12.8 million for the year compared to $10.6 million for 2013, an increase of approximately 21% and long-term debt reduced by $4.8 million. Looking at the financial performance attributable to U.S. Geothermal that is after eliminating minority interest which represents our partner share Neal Hot Springs and Raft River. Our net income for the year was up 497% with the total for the year of $11.6 million compared to $1.9 million for 2013. Adjusted net income for the year was $1.8 million versus $1.9 million in 2013, adjustments include both the one-time gain from the recognition of the deferred tax assets and a one-time impairment for the write-off of the development cost associated with our Granite Creek project. We ended the fourth quarter with cash and cash equivalents of $13 million a $2.3 million increase over the prior quarter, relative to operating performance generation for the year was up 9.5% over the last year, mostly resulting from the higher unit availabilities. Our fleet-wide average operating availability for the year was an impressive 98.7% on equally impressive 96.2% with planned maintenance outages included. On the growth side, at our El Ceibillo project and Guatemala we continue to work with the Ministry of Energy and Mines and are very pleased to report that we now have lowered movements on our request to modify the construction schedule and there are Geothermal concessions. We are ready to drill our next well after we obtain final approval of our new schedule from the Energy Minister. Our team in Guatemala is also holding discussions with our former as well as potentially new off-takers for the energy and we are examining, other new prospects in the country. The acquisition of Earth Power Resources was completed on December 12, bringing three additional high quality geothermal prospects into our development pipeline. We began work immediately on the Crescent Valley project by starting the drilling of a production well before year-end, qualifying this project for a 30% investment tax credit which became available with the federal tax extender legislation that was past late last year. At San Emidio II we completed well 6121 installed the production pipeline and continue to produce well 6121 in the South Zone to the Phase I plan. We are also permitting an underground it drilling in the South Zone to verify and expanded resource. Further we have interconnection studies continuing with NV Energy we have submitted two proposals to NV Energy for the 2014 and 2015 request for proposals for 200 megawatts of renewable energy, and we’ve been notified that our proposal have been short listed. At WGP Geysers, we are approaching potential off-takers for the power from the proposed power plant, we’ve responded to request for a proposal as well as started bi-lateral discussions with interested parties and continued discussions for an alternative possible steam sell . A flow tested existing wells is planned for this spring, which will provide valuable information on this resource as it’s needed to optimize the design of either a power plant or pipeline to deliver steam. Capital and operating costs for both potential operating scenarios are being refined and budgetary bids have been received. We have also reapplied for a transmission interconnection agreement. We continue evaluating a number of other potential acquisitions that could drive our growth both in the near-term and now to our long-term portfolio. Regarding our development budget for 2015, expense activities for our early stage exploration projects are budgeted at $1.5 million. Capital expenditures on our more advanced development projects have been budgeted for up to $3.9 million. These budgets are based on our current portfolio and maybe altered depending on the results of early stage work or new opportunities. On the legislative front in late 2014, Congress passed a tax extender result that will allow us to potentially use a 30% investment tax credit on our projects and start a construction prior to the end of 2014, we believe our Geysers project, our San Emidio II and our Crescent Valley projects are currently qualifying. There are also indications that congress will take up an energy bill in 2015. In California which is the largest geothermal market in the United States, Governor Brown announced a new goal of 50% renewable energy by 2030. The California PUC will also be implementing newly passed AB 2363 which requires the establishment of rules for inclusion of integration cost for renewable. Intermittent technologies such as wind and solar will likely have to include the permitting cost for these resources. Moving on to guidance, our guidance for 2015 is based solely on our existing operations and does not include any impact that may be provided by acquisitions we are currently evaluating. These figures are forecast only and considered forward looking statements. Our guidance for 2015 is as follows. Our revenues $28 million to $33 million, Adjusted EBITDA $15 million to $19 million, EBITDA $12 million to $16 million and net income of $1.9 million to $5.9 million. So Doug, I’ll turn it back to you. Douglas J. Glaspey Thank you Jonathan. In summary with our strong cash flow from operations, we continue to have adequate cash on hand to support both our ongoing operations and early stage developments efforts and we continue to add cash to our balance sheet in preparation for our next construction project or acquisition. We also believe we are appropriately prepared to be responsive to many of the additional growth opportunities that we are currently evaluating. In closing, we have now had nine consecutive quarters of positive EBITDA and cash flow. Our fleet of power plants continues to perform well. We are pleased with the performance of our resources, we are pleased with the new growth opportunities recently added to our portfolio and optimistic regarding the other growth opportunities we are currently evaluating. We thank you for your continuing support and operator, I would now like to open the call for questions. Question-and-Answer Session Operator Thank you. [Operator Instructions] We have a question from the line of [indiscernible] Private Investor. Please proceed with your question. Unidentified Analyst Yes, hello. Douglas J. Glaspey Yes, Steven we can hear you. Unidentified Analyst On Neal Hot Springs you are talking about adding a hybrid system there, adding water. What kind of megawatt improvement would that make? Douglas J. Glaspey Steven you are exactly right we are going to be evaluating the possibility of using the wet cooling in the summer months. I think everybody understands that Neal Hot Springs is an air cooled facility, and in the hot summer hours can dip as low as seven to eight megawatts. We think we can double that with water cooling, so it would be similar to other projects in the summer time. I don’t have a number for you for a total impact of megawatt hours for the year. But we think it’s substantial and, of course it’s something we can do on the surface that doesn’t take drilling. So we should be drilling a water well early this hopefully within the next month or so to see if we can find a suitable water resource that would supply that cooling system, and then we are going to test several different possibilities conventional water cooling towers and mist cooling are the two we are going to looking at and hopefully by the end of this season we’ll have an idea of if we can add that water cooling. But thank you for the question its one of the ways we can increase generation without spending a lot of capital. Unidentified Analyst I had another question on the Geysers and the flow test, or fewer on your on your presentation where you make whatthe 38 megawatts. If you did that, would you be able to be more competitive on your megawatt price and the bidding for PPA with a bigger plan? Douglas J. Glaspey Yes, thank you Steven the of course of the size of the plan has an impact typically on capital cost per megawatt hour that 38 megawatt size is the growth generation from the currently permitted plant. So that’s one of the things that flow test is going to tell us this spring – exactly what size plant we can build and operate over the long-term we don’t just look at what the short-term generation is of course. We are going to be looking at time periods of 20 years to 25 years and that’s the number we are seeking from the flow test this year. Unidentified Analyst Okay and then on your net income guidance that’s just U.S. Geothermal that’s excludes the non-consulting interest right? Kerry D. Hawkley That is correct. Unidentified Analyst Okay. All right well thanks a lot and everything looks good. Keep up the good work. Douglas J. Glaspey Thank you. Kerry D. Hawkley Thank you, Steven. Operator Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Jim McIlree with Chardan Capital. Please proceed with your question. James P. McIlree Yes, thanks and good morning. Douglas J. Glaspey Good morning. James P. McIlree When do you think that you would arrive at a decision on Geysers, which direction you would go either the electricity or the steam? Douglas J. Glaspey Good morning Jim. My expectation is certainly before the end of this year and I would like to have that decision somewhere around mid-year. James P. McIlree And so if it were – let’s take year-end instead. So if it were year-end decision what does that imply in terms of when it comes online starts generating revenue? Douglas J. Glaspey If it was a year-end decision we would have at least two years of construction. Kerry D. Hawkley If it was a power plant. Douglas J. Glaspey If it’s a power plant. If it’s a steam sell it could potential be as short as nine to 12 months. James P. McIlree And similar question for the Crescent Valley and Gerlach efforts. A timeframe as to when those could be online if all goes well. Douglas J. Glaspey Little bit longer timeframe, we still have to define resources of those projects and lets say we’re successful this year, so by the end of the year we have resource defined, we have a PPA in hand and you are looking at, at least two years of construction, before you would be online and generating electricity. James P. McIlree And is there any additional information you can provide as to why the Guatemala power buyer side is not renewed at contracts for the MOU. Kerry D. Hawkley Well I think there is probably several reasons Jim, the power situation in the country has changed a little bit and it’s a little uncertain right now, there was a large coal fired power plant that was supposed to be built in Guatemala that is only partially been built now, they have had a lot of trouble with their hydro facilities, actually they are having a bit of a drought down there as well so hydro has not turned out to be as consistent as they would like. So I think its really more uncertainty than anything else. You might recall too that that MOU covered flat priced PPA, so one of the things we’re looking at with them is shaping that PPA price overtime putting an escalator in it which it didn’t have before. So I think there is a number of issues that I guess I can’t tell you exactly why, but those are my feelings. James P. McIlree Okay, great. That’s very helpful. Thank you. Kerry D. Hawkley Thanks Jim. End of Q&A Operator [Operator Instructions] It seems there are no further questions at this time. I would like to turn it back to management for closing comments. Douglas J. Glaspey Great, I would like to thank everybody again for being on the call. We’re looking forward to a very exciting 2015, we’ve got a lot of things that we’re evaluating and as far as new projects are concerned we have a lot of work to do on our existing development and exploration projects. So keep a close eye on us and we look forward to talking to you next quarter. Thank you very much. Operator Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, this does conclude today’s teleconference. You may disconnect your lines at this time. Thank you for your participation.