Tag Archives: director

Clean Energy Fuels (CLNE) Andrew Littlefair on Q1 2015 Results – Earnings Call Transcript

Clean Energy Fuels Corp. (NASDAQ: CLNE ) Q1 2015 Earnings Conference Call May 11, 2015 4:30 PM ET Executives Tony Kritzer – Director-Investor Relations Andrew Littlefair – President, CEO & Director Bob Vreeland – Senior VP, CFO & Accounting Officer Analysts Eric Stine – Craig Hallum Capital Group Carter Driscoll – HC Winrate Rob Brown – Lake Street Capital Noah Kaye – Northland Capital Markets Andrea James – Dougherty & Company Pavel Molchanov – Raymond James & Associates, Inc Operator Greetings, and welcome to the Clean Energy Fuels First Quarter 2015 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. [Operator Instructions].As a reminder, this conference is being recorded. It is now my pleasure to introduce your host Tony Kritzer, Director of Investor Relations. Thank you, Mr. Kritzer. You may now begin. Tony Kritzer Thank you, operator. Earlier this afternoon, Clean Energy released financial results for the first quarter ending March 31, 2015. If you did not receive the release, it is available on the Investor Relations section of the company’s website at www.cleanenergyfuels.com, where the call is also being webcast. There will be a replay available on the website for 30 days. Before we begin, we’d like to remind you that some of the information contained in the news release and on this conference call contains forward-looking statements that involve risks, uncertainties, and assumptions that are difficult to predict. Words of expression reflecting optimism, satisfaction with current prospects, as well as words such as believe, intend, expect, plan, should, anticipate, and similar variations, identify forward-looking statements. But their absence does not mean that the statement is not forward-looking. Such forward-looking statements are not a guarantee of performance, and the company’s actual results could differ materially from those contained in such statements. Several factors that could cause or contribute to such differences are described in detail in the Risk Factors section of Clean Energy’s Form 10-Q, filed May 11, 2015. These forward-looking statements speak only as of the date of this release. The company undertakes no obligation to publicly update any forward-looking statements or supply new information regarding the circumstances after the date of this release. The company’s non-GAAP EPS and adjusted EBITDA will be reviewed on this call, and exclude certain expenses that the company’s management does not believe are indicative of the company’s core business operating results. Non-GAAP financial measures should be considered in addition to results prepared in accordance with GAAP, and should not be considered as a substitute for, or superior to, GAAP results. The directly comparable GAAP information, reasons why management uses non-GAAP information, a definition of non-GAAP EPS and adjusted EBITDA, and a reconciliation between these non-GAAP and GAAP figures is provided in the company’s press release, which has been furnished to the SEC on Form 8-K today. Participating on today’s call from the company is President and Chief Executive Officer, Andrew Littlefair; and Chief Financial Officer, Bob Vreeland. With that, I will turn the call over to Andrew. Andrew Littlefair Thank you, Tony. Good afternoon, everyone. And thank you for joining us. I am pleased to review our first quarter 2015 operating results with you today. We reported 75.2 million gallons delivered this quarter, up 27% from the 59.3 millions gallons we delivered in the first quarter of 2014. Revenue was $85.8 million in the first quarter versus $95.3 million a year ago. Revenue decreased primarily due to three factors. We had a $9.1 million in construction project that were essentially complete at the end of the first quarter, but the revenue cannot be recognized. And most of this money is in the bank so this is just a timing matter. Lower natural gas commodity prices which in turn affected our revenue by $3.7 million. And finally IMW was a challenge as we told you would be on our last call due to a global equipment slowdown resulting from declining oil prices. As well as the strength of the US dollar which impacted international sales? Despite all of these our margins increased $0.02 to $0.28 per gallon and because of the increased volumes our fuel sale revenues increased by $8.4 million. Despite the decline in oil, we continue to see significant investments across the entire natural gas vehicles industry. Just last week, I attended the alternative Clean Transportation Expo in Dallas and there were several major announcements that will continue to develop and strengthen the NGV industry. Rush Enterprises, the largest truck dealership network in the country announced a new venture to manufacture, sell and stall and service new light weight compressed natural gas fuel systems for class VI through VIII trucks. Cummins Engine Company and Agility Fuel Systems announced strategic partnership that will include hardware and software tech natural gas engines and Agility Fuel tanks. Cummins Westfort announced that it will begin testing their spark ignited natural gas engine which is capable of producing near zero Nox emissions years ahead of the 2023 PA requirement. Ford motor company announced that in 2016 the F150, the best selling vehicle in the country will come with gas prepped engine. And Ford Landi Renzo announced they will be offering new F150, F250 and F350 natural gas trucks after market. Power Solutions International acquired power train integrators which will give PSI much greater reach in the GM on road engine and platform capabilities. This will open new opportunities for them through freight line or GM and other OEM offerings. And last month Peterbilt introduced two new models LNG powered truck configurations to their line up of natural gas vehicles. One silver lining of this lower oil prices is that the industry is responded by working to reduce incremental cost in natural gas trucks. Partly due to our tank programs with Agility and Chart. In certain truck configurations we’ve seen tank and engine prices come down more than 25%. This is great news as it helping to drive adoption. Turning for the market to the specifics of Clean Energy, we made progress across all of our market segments in the first quarter. In trucking, Raven Transport is deploying 115 additional heavy duty LNG trucks. This is a great example of adoption from long haul multi state trucking customer. They will now be fueling a 184 LNG trucks at 14 Clean Energy stations in eight states throughout the South East. We signed an agreement with Potelco in Washington to fuel 75 heavy duty LNG trucks. We opened two additional truck friendly stations in Arizona and Kansas City to support 58 CNG trucks for seaboard transport. We signed an agreement with Dean Food to build a private CNG fueling station to fuel 64 trucks at their Oak Farms Dairy plant in Houston, Texas. We have also expanded our fueling agreement with Dillon Transport who currently operates over 200 CNG trucks and we expect their volume with us to triple year-over-year. And in our rough use market we are building a third CNG station for Burrtec Waste in California. We completed a new station in Tampa for Progressive Waste for their 75 new trash trucks and we are building a fourth CNG station for Waste Pro in Sanford, Florida to support their 90 new trash trucks. Led by our customers’ waste management and republic services, we believe the refuse industry is picking up the pace over previous year. We should build over 35 stations projects for our customers this year, a record number. And we expect a record number of trucks to be deployed. Currently, we feel about 8,900 trucks for our refuse customers each day. In a transit market, Dallas area rapid transit added 63 new CNG buses. They now operate a natural gas fleet of 568 buses in 232 para transit vehicles that fuel at the four stations we built for them. We built a private station for Torrance, California’s municipal fleet of 35 trash trucks and 29 transit buses. In our fleet services market we opened Orlando airport station which can accommodate vehicles ranging from passenger cars to buses to heavy duty trucks. Year-to-date we’ve completed 16 station projects for ourselves and our customers in our various market segments. Let me now spend a moment on IMW. As we mentioned on the last call we anticipated that they would be challenge in the first quarter. Some of that is due to the global decline in oil which soften their sales and some of that is due to the strength in US dollar. However, we have right sized the business and made significant product enhancements. We standardized our compressor design which will decrease our time to ship and make our manufacturing more efficient. So IMW was somewhat of a drag in Q1, it is getting better in Q2. There are still global demands and we recently receive orders from China, Vietnam, Eastern Europe, Canada and Mexico. IMW remains strategically important for us as we account for roughly 20% of their production for our own station builds. Turning now to our renewable fuels division. Last week UPS signed an agreement to purchase our Redeem branded renewable natural gas fuel at their stations in Sacramento, Fresno and Los Angeles. We estimate that these three stations will provide approximately 1.5 million gallons of renewable fuel annually to roughly 400 CNG vehicles that UPS has deployed in California. This was a significant step in the expansion of our Redeem business. As you know, we’ve been supplying redeemed all of our public stations in California since launching it about a year and half ago. Over the last six months, municipalities, universities and now UPS, the largest logistics company in the country have signed long-term deals to guarantee they will receive renewable natural gas that is rated 90% clean than diesel. This deal sends a strong message to the transportation industry. UPS continue to be leader in the deployment of natural gas vehicles with their recent announcements of increased orders of both LNG and CNG of over 800 tractors and 600 delivery vans. In fact, UPS is on record saying they haven’t purchased a diesel truck in the last two years. We sold 8.9 million gallons of Redeem in the quarter compared to 2.8 million gallons during the first quarter of last year. Redeem is nice a contributor to our margin and revenue and we continue to be very bullish on the growing an environmentally relevant business. Our new virtual CNG pipeline business NG Advantage has made solid progress. They are recently awarded a contract to provide compressed natural gas to international papers by Ticonderoga New York paper mill which we expect to add at least 5 million gallons this year. This is a significant opportunity for NG Advantage and we look to expand this business as new opportunities emerge to lower our customers’ fuel cost while meeting with their environmental goals. Our two stations that support NG Advantage accounted for over 4.7 million gallons combined in the first quarter. Regarding our CapEx plans for the year we are still on track to spend $38 million for Clean Energy and $21 million related to NG Advantage growth opportunities. Remember, this is down from $87 million last year. At the end of the first quarter, we had $220 million of cash and investments on the balance sheet. Overall, our core business is doing very well with growing volumes and expanding margins in relatively difficult environment. Although there was pressure on EBITDA this quarter, I want to reiterate that we still expect to be adjusted EBITDA positive for the full year. And with that I’ll turn the call over to Bob. Bob Vreeland Thank you, Andrew. And good afternoon, everyone. It is my pleasure to go over our financial results for the first quarter ended March 31, 2015. I’ll address some highlights as well as some of the challenges. The financial highlights of the first quarter fall under four areas. Volumes and the associated increased revenue, margin for gasoline gallon equivalent, SG&A spending and cash flow. The growth in volume of 27% over the first quarter of 2014 came from all of our sectors. The most notable growth coming from the following. The trucking increased 35%, refuse increased 24%, transit increased 14% and our industrial sector more than doubled. From a product standpoint, our fuel gallons increased 29% and our gallons associated with operating and maintenance services increased 28% compared to the first quarter of 2014. Revenues related to gallons delivered increased 15% or $8.4 million when comparing the first quarter of 2015 to the first quarter of 2014. Our margin per gasoline gallon equivalent was $0.28 compared to $0.27 in the first quarter of 2014 and compared to $0.26 in the fourth quarter of 2014. This gain in margin is attributed to product mix essentially more fuel gallons, declines in natural gas cost and additional RIN credits. Our SG&A spending remain under control at approximately $30 million for the quarter, an improvement of nearly 10% over year ago and flat with our most recent quarter. On cash flow, we collected all of our 2014 volumetric excise tax credit in March which contributed to our positive cash flow from operations of $20.9 million for the first quarter of 2015. As Andrew mentioned upward our cash and investments at $220 million at the end of March 2015. Now the challenges we face in a quarter were the anticipated lower revenue volume from IMW, the timing of revenue recognition on station sales and to a lesser degree the impact on revenue of price declines from lower commodity costs. IMW revenues were impacted by a slowdown in orders on the international front and the government sectors due to low oil prices and the strength of US dollar. Also when comparing IMW revenue between the first quarters of 2015 and 2014, IMW’s first quarter of 2014 was exceptionally strong due a large custom project in process at that time and other orders that carried over from 2013 which we knew would not be repeated in the first quarter of 2015. On our station sales we had three large station projects that did not meet our revenue recognition accounting requirements and thus will be recognized in the second possibly third quarter depending on certain external factors outside our control. This was about $9.1million in station revenue that was deferred outside the first quarter and which Andrew indicated as well, most of that’s been collected. On the price front, we will always have certain fluctuations in pricing. This first quarter saw some rather meaningful price declines, driven by the lower gas commodity cost. That impacted our top line revenue by $3.7 million when compared to 2014, although most of this did not drop down into our margin and due to the lower cost. Our adjusted EBITDA for the first quarter of 2015was negative $5.6 million compared to negative $6.8 million in the same period in 2014 despite having $9.5 million less in revenue in the first quarter of 2015 versus 2014. We were positively impacted by our increased volumes and steady margin per gallon between the periods and negatively impacted by the lower station sales in IMW revenue. We expect quarterly adjusted EBITDA to improve as we continue to leverage our station and cost infrastructure and grow volumes. We still expect to be positive adjusted EBITDA for 2015. From a balance sheet perspective the most notable change from December was the collection of volumetric excise tax credit. We also have done some financing of capital expenditures principally CNG trailers supporting our industrial sector namely NG Advantage. Now we generally get a question on our convertible notes coming due at the end of August, 2016 in the amount of $145 million. As a reminder, these notes are payable in cash or common stock at our election. We continue to actively address these notes and we are evaluating a variety of alternatives. In addition to the equity aspect available, we also have over $500 million in encumbered long-term asset along with our own internally generated cash as we look forward towards positive EBITDA and a possibility of further VETC or asset sales. The key takeaway here is we are actively addressing this matter and we have a variety of choices. Our goal is to satisfy the notes in an effective manner while maintaining adequate cash and operational flexibility beyond August 2016. And with that operator, we will open the call to questions. Question-and-Answer Session Operator [Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from the line of Eric Stine with Craig Hallum. Please proceed with your question. Eric Stine Hi, everyone. Wondering if you can just talk about what are you seeing from shippers in the market? What role that played in the Raven deal and what role that’s playing in some of the other contracts out there? Andrew Littlefair Yes, Eric. That continues. Just to — for our friends who maybe aren’t quite as familiar recall that shippers, we use that term to the companies like Procter and Gamble or MillerCoors, these are large consumer companies that may not have their own trucking fleet and they actually go out and hire contracting fleet — contacted carriers for them. And as you know we talked to dozens if not more than hundred of these companies trying to make sure they understand the sustainability games by natural gas and also that the cost of the fuel. And we do it now in a constructive manner with our trucker friend because obviously the shippers and the truckers are very close. And so we continue to see the shippers, Eric, move forward. Procter and Gamble as you know I think has 20% mandate in place for its carriers. Raven fit in their — they do some Procter and Gamble work as I think they also do some for MillerCoors. We have seen MillerCoors would be aggressive wanting to have hauling at a lot of their different breweries move this direction. Kroger has their own fleet but they are also been very aggressive. So we continue to see these shippers Colgate Palmolive, Home Depot and others. So I think it is going to be a bigger and bigger move because they are savings on the fuel and there is a great sustainability gains to be have. They wanted to do in a constructive manner with their hauler. They have to have good relations with their trucking company but on the other hand they pay for the fuel. So we continue to see the shippers move in this direction and work with their truckers. Eric Stine Got it, okay. And then on that Raven deal, I know that enabled to you — that was your anchor fleet to open another three to four stations. Just curios how that deal has — having those stations in place has changed conversations in that area of the country and just what you see going forward? Andrew Littlefair Yes. I mean I think to the extent that some people thought we obviously build lot of stations and didn’t have — we haven’t had them open yet because of the slower deployment of trucks and the kind of year delay in those trucks. But you know what the Raven is a perfect example. If we didn’t have those stations built right now they wouldn’t have made that deal, they wouldn’t have been able to make that deal and have those routes to satisfy the Procter and Gamble business. And so it totally changes the discussion and it means that right now as Raven begins to take those delivery of those trucks we are able to open these stations at our previously where we spent the capital and we are ready to open them in a matter weeks not in a matter of year if you have to build it from scratch. One other thing I think is important the Raven deal and of course these are LNG trucks. We are not– we have seen a lot of urban kind of regional haulers use compressed natural gas and we feel a lot of those, this is really one of the biggest deployments of real long haul trucks. These are irregular routes going over night, hitting many different cities and our network is able to accommodate that. So LNG is a very good fuel for that and I think that’s why Raven went with 150 LNG tractors. Eric Stine Got it. Maybe to sticking with LNG stations, you have now got a number of cold LNG tank solutions in the market for Spark ignited. Is that — are there actual instances where that enables you to open a station on 20 trucks versus kind of the historical levels more like 30 plus? Andrew Littlefair Yes. We in fact we have kind of altered our position where — this is for LNG of course, where we can open those station out with 20 trucks. And in fact we have done it with less, we’ve done it with 15. So which is nice because that is — that’s kind of in the wheelhouse in terms of the number of trucks that these guys are beginning to take and it allows to open stations. We’ve opened — in the first quarter we opened another four plus one mobile five, we opened actually a station Friday which adds to that number six and plus three more mobile fuelers. So we are able open them now for 20 trucks and as I said earlier we can open them in a matter of weeks when we are ready to go. Operator Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Carter Driscoll with HC Winrate [ph] Please proceed with your question. Carter Driscoll Hi, guys. How are you? First question just given the depressed prices for several quarters, I am sure maybe hopefully you are thinking the competitive environments maybe waned a little bit and obviously purchasing stations in the past, has your thinking changed there might be some strategic assets or stations in particular out there that you might be able to cherry pick or maybe even a group of stations and how that does or doesn’t fit in with your current CapEx plans and then obviously with the bullet payment you have due next August. Andrew Littlefair Well, right. And I think that the downturn in oil prices has probably put some strain on players that have few stations and then they might be a few truck friendly stations in a given region. We have a history of kind of take advantage of those opportunities when we see them. As you know we bought stations from SoCalGas Public Service Colorado, Lone Star Gas and Brooklyn Union Gas. So we made acquisition from time to time. I think you will see a couple of packages come up. I can’t say much more about that right now. We obviously have to weigh whether or not we think they are appropriately loaded or if they help our network, we have 257 stations that we own, I guess we actually co-own about 10 of those and then we operate another 301 so when you look at network, I think our next largest competitor maybe has 70 or 80. So if there will be occasions where there maybe an order to that will fit in nicely and if couple of these bigger packages comes up, we will look at them. You are right we have to weigh our cash and or stock prices and our ability to take that on. And we have to make sure that’s it is going to fit our network. Some of these smaller players and smaller stations, they might be situated at a convenient store; it doesn’t really fit our model. So we wanted to be careful on what we look at. Carter Driscoll Right. Now that makes lot sense. And then you have seen lot of — well you have seen some activity in terms of moving more towards the leasing model and trying to get maybe discount on the fuel or have it amortized within that leasing price. Can you update us on your efforts in that regard with your partnership? And then I have one more follow up if I may. Andrew Littlefair Okay. Well, you know we’ve been doing that for a long time. I mean you probably – I mean we actually did some of deals like that in fact Boone talked about it, did some with school districts 15 years ago. So this is something that we looked at for a long time. You know we have partnership, relationship with GE to do that. Of course that arm is for sale right now. But it’s business as usual. Our sales team and theirs are canvassing about 150 different fleets. We’ve had 46 different proposals from customers through GE lease with our field rep into that. We’ve actually made handful so better that I think about 10 of those deals have actually consummated. I think in the leasing scenario right now as you are looking at, at least what we saw little bit of GE with that with the down deep into the fuel price. It put some pressure on gas or diesel product to really scratch their head more and if they wanted to now go and leasing that for gas truck. But I think it is — one of our competitors recently announced deal like this. It is good way to go. There is enough fuel savings in there where you are really able to put somebody into a natural gas truck at a similar same price as a diesel truck where you offsetting the incremental and you are able to make it up with the fuel price over time with the fuel contract. So it makes a lot of sense and it is part of our package, our 80 sales men, they all have this is one of their tools in their bag and so yes we will see more of it. Carter Driscoll Okay. And then maybe if you could just give us an update on — well, maybe not an update but maybe your qualification of what you’ve learned with the NG Advantage structure right now? What’s been maybe ahead of schedule? What’s been maybe behind schedule? Or in terms of signing up customers, has that been faster or slower, maybe even kind of the average size of what you’ve done so far? I know it’s been relatively few in number so far but if you could just qualify how you’re performing in that –? Andrew Littlefair Yes. We are very pleased with NG Advantage. And even in this tighter oil environment versus fuel because we are competing with fuel oil mostly in that but we are still able NG Advantage is still able to offer 25% to 30% saving. So the international paper, this is different than the trucking business where there is thousands of fleets and millions of trucks all over the place. There is more defined geographic location and also there are only 10 or 15 international paper plants. So now they are huge consumers of fuel and we are very proud of that international paper deal because I mean in that one deal is 5 million gallons and so we are really very focus NG events of those type of customers. They are in the North East, they are in the Middle Atlantic and we are pleased the way that’s going. We’ve signed up several more customers since we acquired that business, fact you know it is a high class problem. We are getting ready to be out of capacity those two stations that we have one in New Hampshire, one in Vermont. We are going to add capacity to it. So we have high hopes for the way that business continues to develop. Carter Driscoll Okay. And maybe just squeeze in one more and I’ll ask kind of the ubiquitous question. From a trucking perspective, have you seen any noticeable shift between CNG and LNG? Is it really still more of a return to base focus for CNG and longer haul, more focused on LNG — do you still have that expertise — Andrew Littlefair Well, I still think that’s the case. I mean I have been clear, we like the way we are positioned because we do both. And I think right now we are at 70% LNG, I mean 70% CNG and 30% LNG. Obviously we had some big wins recently on a couple of LNG fleet. I do think that when you are in an urban environment, return to base, CNG is probably the right fuel. And when you are longer haul, over the road, irregular route, LNG is going to make a lot of sense for fleet. And so we are well positioned to do both. Lot of our truck friendly stations, about half of them now the ones that we both have CNG as well as LNG. So it is whatever the customer needs. But I think you are right, over time longer haul will probably shift little bit towards LNG and I think we turn to base in urban environment, it is pretty tough to compete with the CNG. I think that would be the preferred fuel. Operator Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Rob Brown with Lake Street Capital. Please proceed with your question. Rob Brown Good afternoon. On your Redeem business, what’s sort of your gallon capacity in that business? Can you continue to grow that sort of without limit? Or is there a limit there? Andrew Littlefair Well, if you ever heard our man who runs that business, Harrison Clay, he will tell you to, he will give you very large numbers. I mean if you look at the country and you look at digesters and agriculture and land fill, you can get to see very large numbers. I mean many tens of billions of gallon. So I think in fact I was talking with Boon about this about a week ago, he wondered how big could that business really be. It is pretty large. Now there will be certain areas where it will make more sense and maybe too far away from the transportation market or too far away from the grid to be able to put that fuel in. I think it can be very large. We expect to grow our Redeem business more than double at this year. And we are now bringing more of third party gas we ever before with certain deals that we are doing so we are bringing a lots of fuel. The advantage that we have over many others in this business is that we have the stations to be able to get this in the transportation fuel. So that’s give us a leg up. So we have some fairly large third party producers that are bringing this fuel and they want to get it to us to be able to get into our transportation network. That’s where you get the full value of this is to be able to do get on the land fill or get out of digester but get into the vehicle tank. We are uniquely positioned for that. So we are beginning to see more and more traction where for instance LAMTA is going out to look for Redeem at least 50 or 60 million gallons a year. So you are beginning to see fleets recognize the importance of being able to use really the cleanest commercial fuel available like in the country, in the world for that matter. So we like it. Our customers as evidenced by UPS and others like it and understand it. When they look at wanting to be sustainable, I know this sounds touchy feely when you start talking about sustainability but they are serious about it, these big companies. So it is one of the most impactful things they can do to hit their sustainability goals. And so, yes, it adds revenue for us and it adds nice margin for us. And our customers like it. Rob Brown Okay, great, thank you. And then you mentioned the Agility deal a little bit. Where are you at with that? How many sorts of trucks have you sold there? And how is that being received in the market and your customer? Andrew Littlefair Right. So just as everybody else Rob, we’ve made some we call them tank deals right. So we made some deals with Chart and Agility where we have been able to get some special pricing for Clean Energy customers. We pass that pricing on to the customers. We’ve — our first offering with the Chart was over subscribed and so we are moving on to the next tranche of LNG tanks there. Agility as you know it wasn’t signed as early as the Chart one. So we are just kind of getting going on that. But I’ll tell you what is one of the things I mentioned in my remarks is when you are able to really bring 20%, 30% out of the cost of the tank package, you get the customers’ attention. And it is meaningful and it really offset this reduction in the savings between diesel and natural gas. So it is really meaningful and I have no doubt that over the course — especially with this new deal with Cummins Engine Company. Agility that really makes this I think even a better offering. And I have no doubt that it will before the year is out we will make substantial progress on moving through all those tanks. Rob Brown Okay, good. And then last question just sort of big picture. What’s sort of your latest thinking on the penetration rate in the trucking market this year with the current commodity environment? I guess the refuse market as well? Andrew Littlefair Well, the refuse market, I am out of the business to predicting how many trucks right. So you are going to have to — if you want truck numbers you are going to get that from Cummins or somebody that’s little closer to it. We haven’t seen Rob a fall off. And in the fact that I think if you put in new big UPS order for the 2015, I think we are going to be all pleasantly surprised that it is holding up very well. We haven’t seen customers — that the few customers that we have that have been on the fence are still on the fence. And but the customers that, this 600 or 800 so that we have on our pipeline, we haven’t seen anybody run for the exits because of this, they know that price of oil and diesel is volatile. I think frankly we’ve already seen the price come up here in California diesel is about $3 and $0.30 some odd, the other parts of the country it is lower. Gasoline, is of course is up dramatically nationwide and here in California so we are seeing the price kind of come back. I really think that with these big investments that you have seen these companies and there are products that are available and more product offerings. I feel pretty good about the way that the adoption rate is going. We see more customers taking more trucks and we still have some that are starting out with the 10 or 15 but the Raven is a good example where they had 75 trucks, now they have taken another 115. They are talking about taking even more, deal in trucking are very good example. What UPS has done. You know, Ryder is quietly fielded 900 natural gas trucks and Penske I think it is up to a couple of hundred. So you are beginning to see these really major fleets continue to take trucks and so obviously much higher oil price and diesel price would probably give more acceleration to it. But I feel pretty comfortable that we are — it is going along pretty well. Operator Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Noah Kaye with Northland Capital Markets. Please proceed with your question. Noah Kaye Thank you for taking my question. Just wanted to follow-up on the question on Redeem. The RIN markets for Cellulosics that continue to be valuable, as you start to expand this part of the portfolio; can you talk a little bit about where your margins are at right now for Redeem? And how much of that is coming from the credits? Is there a way to think about that? Bob Vreeland Yes, well, I mean certainly part of that margin comes from the credit, probably go out get into exactly what that margin is but the thing is that with the Redeem those credit there is real market out there. That’s one of the things that we really seen driving this whole product line is that with the — being 90% cleaner to diesel and the whole renewable, sustainable environment, it is driving a lot of big players to say they want some of it. So that’s making the credits a very valid — there is a very valid fluid market for that and so it is kind of factors in there like we are doing most all of other fuel deals where we’ve got kind of cost of gas plus right. And so that factors into the equation. It is just — I can’t tell you exactly what that number is but it is meaningful. And it aligns with the flow of gas. So it is not kind of separate credit it is dangled out there. It is as we fuel those credits are generated. And so it goes right lock-toe in step with the flow of green gas as we call it. Noah Kaye And there’s plenty of runway in your view for the growth of biogas within that tranche of the RFS, correct? Bob Vreeland Correct. Yes, that’s one thing is that the supply — so the supply market is — there is definitely supply out there, absolutely. And it is plentiful. I mean there are a lot of landfills out there. They are producing a lot of methane they just going up in smoke and burning into the atmosphere. And so that’s where the supply is coming from. And we are a good taker of the supply because of our distribution network. Noah Kaye The methane has to be upgraded to your pipeline quality biogas, correct? Bob Vreeland Right. Noah Kaye So you are — but you believe that there’s plenty of biogas supply out there for takers? So is this basically a takers’ market for you right now? Or are you supply-constrained in any way? Bob Vreeland We are not supply constrained at the moment but I mean as folks realize that they are going to put kind of essentially on the same natural gas into whatever they are fueling, but yes this is renewable, truly renewable gas. 90% cleaner than diesel then all of a sudden it start to get pretty attractive. Now and so there is a lot of economics, it surrounds all that but for these clients are pretty substantial that you put on these landfills and dairies whatever it is to capture the stuff but the supply is growing. Andrew Littlefair Obviously, Noah, if you had for instance in this — in the California market or Southern California market, if the LAMTA which is the largest transit fleet in the United States, if they shifted over to bio-methane we would like to think for Redeem, that would be 60 million gallons right annually that we would show up. And so that would make a big impact on the availability. But right now there is a plenty of– there is plenty of supply available. It is more than what people would imagine. Noah Kaye Okay, great. Finally one unrelated question. You touched on NG Advantage and obviously the transportation market. Can you give us an update on the rail opportunity, what you’re seeing out there? Any major tenders coming? How would you kind of characterize that market opportunity? Andrew Littlefair Right. I think the rail opportunity is going to be very large. And as we’ve discussed on these calls before, it is a 3 or 4 billion gallon annual market with just a handful of players. I know one of the top tier players has 6,600 locomotives that on average use 800 gallons a day. So you are talking about significant usage and savings. What I can’t tell you is right now the two — the only two locomotive manufactures in the US are both bringing natural gas product to market. And three at least three may be four, but I know for sure three of the tier one rail companies are all in test. One of them are think is little further along than the others. Well, they are out actually on open track before different locomotives right now. So, yes, they are moving along of course these are long-lived assets; the locomotives are 30 years assets. So you are going to see a lot of the fleet be converted, I am told right now that they are feeling pretty comfortable they can get to 70% displacement i.e. they reduce 30% diesel and 70% natural gas. That’s significant savings. And so yes it takes a while, there is a Federal Railway Administration rules and there is a couple other groups they got to go through in terms of the LNG tank car tenders, but all of this is doable and all workable. And I think you will see the rails on next year or so begin to bring this into their fleet in a meaningful way. I think frankly it is going to go faster when it goes than the marine. Noah Kaye And you expect this will be an LNG opportunity rather than CNG? Andrew Littlefair Yes. It will be LNG. And just so unclear but we are not really allowed to say too much here. We are working with all those tier one firms right now. Operator Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Andrea James with Dougherty & Company. Please proceed with your question. Andrea James Hi, thanks for taking my questions. The gallons delivered were up nicely sequentially and year-over-year at a better mix. The question is how much of that is tied to some of the recent announcements you’ve made? Or I guess put another way what’s sort of the time between you announce something like the Raven or the most recent UPS deals and when it shows up in the numbers? Andrew Littlefair Well, I’ll let Bob, let me tell you what I think it is then Bob if he had some that– I am not quite familiar with so like the Raven, we haven’t seen any volume yet. We have some existing business with Raven but those new 115 haven’t been delivered yet. So it kind of depends I would say anywhere between — it kind of depends on what they’ve ordered and you are talking about from the time they are willing to let us announce or the fleets willing to announce by the time they receive a truck, that could be three or four months. Now the UPS, let me make a caveat there, the UPS volumes, those trucks are fueling already in Southern California and so that can start immediately. And when we made a recent– I don’t know that we have an announcement but we made recent addendum to our national fuel agreement with Dillon. Well, Dillon trucking is already running trucks and so now they are going to begin to use three or four of other stations, so that we’ll come on immediately. Well, when it is a new ground up they have to get those trucks, we may have to build the station and so there is lag, gradual, it is gradual Bob Vreeland So we will some of that but it doesn’t all hit at once but it is moving. Andrew Littlefair The other thing that we see is in just a little bit more mature entry is like refuse, there is a very established pattern of when they go before their companies and do their budgets and then they order their trucks. So when they begin to take delivery of the trucks, that’s why we always got to see a little bit of low over the winter time in the first quarter and they begin to — because they do their budgeting I think like September or something, then they begin to take all those trucks, begin to show up March through kind of the third quarter. So we seek kind of bulge coming on the refuse side. Andrea James And how many stations are you guys operating now? Andrew Littlefair Well, we operate over 500 to 700 I think. We only own about 257 and we operate about 300 Andrea James And America’s Natural Gas Highway, how many of those are open? Andrew Littlefair So there are about 40 as of few days ago, there are about 43 of those open right now. Andrea James And that’s double year-over-year? Andrew Littlefair Yes. Andrea James And how many are like kind of built but ready to go? Andrew Littlefair 50 Andrea James Okay, so you’re almost — you’ve almost — Andrew Littlefair We are making headway and we’ve got eight more that will be open, that already slated to be open by the end of August and then we have about another four that are kind of little bit — we are just waiting to sign those deals and there will be other issues. So I hope we can’t control this exactly. It is kind of depends on the adoption rate of the trucks. But I hope that over the course of the year we will get another 20 or so open so then we will be down to where we only have about 20 to go or so in that number. Andrea James Okay. And then forgive me this one; your diluted shares outstanding fell a little bit. Can you please remind us again what that’s tied to? Bob Vreeland It is exercise of options and how much you talked about? During this quarter or kind of from last year like the year-over-year? Andrea James Well, yes it was like little bit. Go ahead Bob Vreeland We had back and late 2014, we took out about 4 million shares related to a warrant with GE and just the accounting treatment was — we determined that — those shares wouldn’t be in our outstanding share so there was about 4 million that just kind of came out at the end of last year. So when you compare say this year to last year, you are seeing same quarter — you are seeing that fairly significant number come out of shares which was just kind of an accounting entry if you will. Andrea James Got it. And even sequentially, they’re down a little bit too? Bob Vreeland Yes. That’s just normal exercise activity, lot of options or not, yes. Operator Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Pavel Molchanov with Raymond James & Associates, Inc. Pavel Molchanov Hi, guys. Thanks for taking the question. Of your volumes in Q1, how much came from NG Advantage? Andrew Littlefair What’s in the industrial? What’s your industrial number? Bob Vreeland Yes, close to 5 million, just little shy, probably over 5 million. Andrew Littlefair I think it is like 4.7 or — Pavel Molchanov Yes, okay. And that reflects a full quarter of your ownership or majority interest I should say? Bob Vreeland It does. Andrew Littlefair It does. Pavel Molchanov Okay. And on the — when I look at the income statement, the minority interest income that this quarter looks like the positive $380 million, I assume that — $380,000, I’m sorry. Yes, Indeed. That includes the debit for external owners of NG Advantage? Bob Vreeland Correct. That’s what it relates to. Pavel Molchanov Okay. And any other kind of variable interest entities in there? Andrew Littlefair No. Pavel Molchanov In that minority interest line? Andrew Littlefair Correct. Operator There are no further questions at this time. I’d now like to turn the floor back over to management for any closing or additional remarks. Andrew Littlefair Thank you, operator. And thank you everybody for joining us today. We look forward to updating you on our activities in the next quarter. Operator This concludes today’s teleconference. You may disconnect your lines at this time. And thank you for your participation.

AES Tiete’s (AESYY) CEO Britaldo Soares on Q1 2015 Results – Earnings Call Transcript

Executives Britaldo Soares – Chief Executive Officer, Vice Chairman of the Board, Member of the Executive Board Francisco Morandi – Chief Financial Officer, Director of Investor Relations, Member of the Board of Directors Andres Gluski – VP, Investor Relations Ricardo Cyrino – Energy Commercialization Director Analysts Sarunas Andriukaitis – Covalis Capital AES Tiete SA ADR ( OTCPK:AESYY ) Q1 2015 Earnings Conference Call May 11, 2015 10:00 AM ET Operator Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the conference call for AES Tiete SA operated by chorus do Brazil. In this conference call, we will be discussing the results for the first quarter of 2015. The IR area of AES Tiete also informs that the release is available at the company website at ri.aestiete.com.br. [Operator Instructions] On behalf of AES Tiete we would like to clarify that any statements that may be made during this conference call regarding the business outlook, projections and the company’s operating and financial targets are only predictions based on current expectations. Such expectations can change as a result of variables such as market conditions, economic performance, and international markets. The presentation can be downloaded on the website and will be made by Mr. Britaldo Soares, CEO; and Mr. Britaldo Soares , VP and IRO. At the end, the officers are available for questions. I would now like to give the floor to Mr. Britaldo Soares. Sir, you have the floor. Britaldo Soares Thank you very much. Good morning everyone. We will now start the presentation for AES Tiete’s first quarter of 2015. I will briefly summarize the main aspects and Britaldo Soares, our IRO and CFO, will provide you the general overview in more detail. Today we also have our VP for Generation, Ricardo Cyrino, and the VP for Operations and Generation, Italo Freitas, our VP for Legal Affairs and Auditing, Pedro Bueno, and our IR team for IRO. Going onto Slide 2, we have the highlights for the first quarter of 2015. The hydrological scenario is adverse, and we have had a negative dispatch and that has marked our market. The inflows was 64% and lower than the long-term target. The reservoirs closed at an average rate of 30.2% of their capacity, compared to 40.5% in the first quarter of 2014. The average reduction of the [ARM] was 20.7% compared to 3.9% in the first quarter of 2014. In consolidated terms, we had a generation of energy equivalent to 61% of the fiscal guarantee, and I would like to remind you that in the first quarter of 2014 this figure was 92% as the result of a very severe hydrological condition and this has been faced by the entire national network. We are still trying to improve our operational processes, and the management of our assets, AES Tiete, has become the first company in the Americas in the electricity sector to obtain the ISO 55000 in order for its asset management program of its hydropower plants, including the generation of its reservoir, and support schemes. Concerning the commercialization of energy we have sold in this quarter 9 megawatts to deliver in 2017 and between 2019 an average price of R$200 per megawatt hour. Our long-term vision for the 2017, 2019 period is between R$190 to R$200 per megawatt hour. As of 2020 the price should probably approach the marginal cost of inflation and would be around R$160 megawatt per hour. Our contraction position in Eletropaulo totaled 83%, 74% and 47% in 2004 and 2018 respectively, and this has given us more flexibility as of 2016. Moving onto Slide 3, we have the main points of our financial and economic results. The net revenue for this quarter totaled R$690 million, a reduction by 9% compared to the first quarter of ’14 due to mainly the lower volume of energy sold in the spot market, compensated by the larger volume of AES Eletropaulo and allied to the [GSE] and the strategy for seasonality. The price of energy bought at spot price impacted significantly the operational cost and expenses in order to cover the [ERM]. In terms of the cost, the manageable PMSO, we achieved a reduction of 16% compared to the first quarter of ’14. This reduction resulted from our efficiency measures, asset management and costs in the last year. Our EBITDA this quarter totaled 392 million, and this absorbed the impact of the reduction of the [ERM] and the effect of the seasonality between the first quarter of 2015 versus the first quarter of 2014. We closed the quarter with net income of R$200 million and we have approved and proposed to the board of directors the payment of R$122.4 million in dividends to be paid on May 25. Britaldo Soares will now take this presentation on and will talk – and give you more details on the AES Tiete performance. Francisco Morandi Thank you, Britaldo. Good morning everyone. We are now moving to Slide 4. You can see the evolution of the reservoirs and the thermal dispatch. You will see that in the first quarter of 2015 was 62% of the average, historical average and including the April it goes to 67% of the historical average. If you compare this performance to the inflow of 2014, which was 54%, you will see a reduction of 2 percentage points. Including the month of April the inflow was 68%. For your reference, the inflows recorded in the quarter for 2014 was 80% of the historical average. When we see the evolution of the reservoirs at the [SIN], we see that in March we attained 30% of the useful volume. The reservoirs today are at 35% capacity. On the right-hand side of the slide, we have the evolution of the reservoirs and the thermal dispatch in the last years. You can see that the thermal dispatch is still high totaling 17.5 gigawatts in the first quarter for 2015, the same volume for the first quarter of 2014, and higher than the last period of last year. If you go on to Slide 5, you can see the main information on the level of reservoirs in AES Tiete and the generated energy. You can see that the volume of reservoirs of our plants closed the quarter with 59% compared to 44% in the first quarter of 2014. The position today is of 74% of reservoirs today. You can see on the chart that there was an improvement in terms of the reservoir levels of the main plants of the company, however, in the south-east market, in the center, west you can see that there was a fall at the reservoir levels in the first quarter of 2015 if we compare with the same period of last year, closing at 33% in the first quarter of 2014 and 19% in the first quarter of ’15. The inflow observed in this region was 58% of the [LMT], and 74% in the fourth quarter of ’14. Compared to inflows observed in this quarter with the same quarter of last year, you can see that there was slight improvement because the inflow of last year’s first quarter was 52%. Now turning to energy generated, you can see the thermal dispatch in the southeast and center, west when compared to generation in the same period of last year. As a reflex we have against 1994 and 1292, which is equivalent to 60% of the secured energy for Tiete. On Slide 6, we have some possible scenarios in term of reservoir levels for 2015, considering several possibilities in terms of the loads, the reduction of the loads. As a result of internal assessments we see that the rationing risk in 2015 is reduced at 8% concerning a reduction in the loads of 0.5% to 1%. The company believes that the price on the spot market will remain at a ceiling of R$388.46 per megawatt hour across and throughout the year and that the thermal dispatch will total 16 gigawatts to 17 gigawatts average. The [GSS] for 2015 is estimated between 0.81 and 0.83. In the next slide, number 7, you will see the reduction in the [ARM] for 2015. The reduction verified in the first quarter of 2015 was 20.7%. This amount was superior to the amount recorded for the first quarter of last year, which was 3.9% as a result both of the increase of the thermal dispatch and of the seasonality strategy in the market. Concerning our hydrological projections for 2015, we’re forecasting the maintenance of a high level of reduction in the [MRE]. As a result, we are reviewing our GSS and a possible impact in EBITDA for the year. The provision for the thermal dispatch should be at 16% to 17% at [Indiscernible], and this will total a stock price of top R$388 throughout 2015. The company also produced that between their exchange of the subsystems and the intermission generations, the load that should previously grow by 0.7% should be reduced by 0.5% to 1%. As a result, the company has reduced its estimate and expects a reduction by 17% to 19% as we have said of [GSS] between 0.83 that will maybe result in an impact, negative impact of 750 million to 840 million in EBITDA in 2015. Unidentified Company Representative On the next slide we see the specific results both for billed energy or invoiced energy and for net revenue. The company’s billed energy grew 1% compared quarter-on-quarter mainly due to the increase of built energy with the contract with AES Eletropaulo, which is partially offset in the spot market and other bilateral contracts. The net revenue in the first quarter in turn totaled R$690 million in the first quarter, 9% down from the same period of last year due to the seasonality strategy and also due to the [GSS]. On the next slide, Slide 9, we are talking about cost. The light blue part in the chart shows mainly the impact of cost on the purchase of energy in the first quarter of 2015 when compared to the first quarter of 2014. As we can see, the growth of cost in the first quarter of this year is related to the higher purchase of energy in the spot market, despite the fact that we had a lower price when compared to the same period of last year. The important piece of news is that if we continue to intensify our efficiency gain initiatives and also be in line with our guidance, which was published in the end of 2014, we have reduced PMSO, the Manageable PMSO by 16% in the first quarter when compared to the first quarter of last year. The process review, also internalization of labor and services and also the reassessment of administrative costs were the main drivers leading to that reduction level. All efforts are in line with our strategic guidelines for disciplined execution and efficiency in the use of resources. For 2015, the company will continue to work so that the Manageable PMSO will grow zero when compared to the year 2014. Moving onto Slide 10, you can see that the EBITDA for the first quarter totaled R$392 million as opposed to R$594 million in the first quarter of last year. And this quarter the company recorded a net income of R$200 million vis-à-vis R$358 million in the first quarter of 2014. The main drivers for that performance in the quarter are the reduction in the period, the seasonality strategy even with gains in manageable cost and increase in the contract price with Eletropaulo. The company’s board of directors approved last Friday a dividend payout of R$122.4 million. That corresponds to 100% of distribution days. On Slide 11, we will be talking about investments. Investments in the first quarter totaled R$30 million, when compared to R$37 million invested in the first quarter 2014. Most of that were allocated to the modernization and maintenance of Agua Vermelha, Bariri, Barra Bonita, and [Indiscernible] plants. Additionally on the same slide, we can see our investment plan for the 2015-2019 cycle with investments at R$487 million, mainly allocated to modernization and maintenance of the company’s power plants. On the next slide, Slide 12, you will see that the generation of cash flow was at R$101 million driven by higher purchase of energy in the spot market, also reflective of the reduction of fiscal guarantee, and [Indiscernible] when compared to 2014. Now free cash in the first quarter of ’15 was negative at R$221 million as opposed to R$164 positive in the first quarter of last year. With that our final cash position in the first quarter is R$280 million. Moving on to the next slide, you will see that the company’s leverage level closed the first quarter at 1.9x, reflecting again the seasonality, and also due to the reduction in the period. Our net debt closed the quarter at R$1.4 billion as opposed to R$0.8 million in the first quarter of 2014 mainly due to the issuance of the second promissory note at R$500 million, which would be partially used to amortize debt throughout the year. The company amortized the last installment of the first debenture issuance, 120 million were paid on March 31 and R$180 million were paid on April 1. One Slide 14, we see the contracting level for the company’s own energy. The company has signed more contracts in the first quarter of 2015 with a volume of approximately 9 megawatt average at an average price of R$200 per megawatt hour, and an average term of three years. After those sales, the contract level reached 83%, in 2016 74%, in 2017, also 74%, and then 47% in 2018, which places the company in a very comfortable position and prepared to face any scenario, which should come after the end of the contract with Eletropaulo, which will happen at the end of this year 2015. As it was anticipated by Britaldo, our price expectation for the period ranging from 2017 through 2019 is very strong R$190 and R$200 per megawatt hour. Starting in 2020, prices will come closer to the marginal cost of system expansion, sitting at around R$160 per megawatt hour. I will give the floor back to Britaldo for his final remarks. Thank you. Britaldo Soares Thank you, Francisco. As you could see, during the presentation our hydrological conditions have stayed below our historical average, so that adverse scenario and high levels of thermal dispatch resulted in a lowering of the fiscal guarantee of the [ERM], which led to a higher purchase of this in the spot market, and that in turn affected the results of the company in the first quarter. We carry on looking for more efficiency in our operations as we see a drop of 60% in manageable cost, which was referenced by Francisco during the presentation. That is one sign of our efforts and also through an improvement of our operating processes such as those including maintenance of our assets, which are now being recognized by the ISO 55,001and relative to our contracting strategy our contract portfolio after 2015 will remain consistent. We should reach a level of 83% in 2016, 74% in 2017 and 47% in 2018. As Francisco also said in the end, our vision is for a price range for 3 year contracts of around R$190 through R$/200 per megawatt power for the 2017-2019 period and looking in the longer term 2020 and on we are looking at a price at around R$160. We will now move to the Q&A session and we will be available for your comments and doubts. Thank you very much. Question-and-Answer Session Operator Ladies and gentlemen we will now start the Q&A session. [Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from Lilian Yang [ph] from UBS. Unidentified Analyst Hi, thank you for the call. I’d like to know if you have any ongoing negotiation on the generators parts containing GSF, which is very high for this year and if you have any forecast for that GSF level for next year as well. Thank you. Britaldo Soares Thank you Lilian this is Britaldo speaking. I’ll ask Ricardo Cyrino to address your question then I’ll add my comments at the end. Please Cyrino you have the floor. Ricardo Cyrino As for the GSF, our proposal consists of restricting the economic impact taken on by generating companies to a certain level. For example 5% and we are also assessing alternatives to mitigate whatever exceeds that level. In our view there is a series of variables, which are out of the control of the generating companies and which will interfere in the dispatch level. For example, from a dispatch for electricity, safety and also the out of merit dispatchers or dispatchers which are not taking place in a centralized way and also variations in consumption that slowed down consumption. In fact generating companies to the extent that we do not have a good reservoir level. So the term of dispatch is maintained and thermoelectric generation absorbs that reduction. Just to give you an idea, the out of merit dispatch for this year is expected to reach something about 7% in terms of lowering that will impact the reduction for generating companies by 7%. So it is essential for us to establish a limiting level for that and that will also help us to allocate costs that occasionally exceed those levels. So that we can share risks and benefits of that scenario. Unidentified Analyst Okay thank you. Can you give an idea of the level of out of merit generation for last year, do you have that number at hand? Ricardo Cyrino I do not have it in here, but I can get it for you, the out of merit generation for last year. Unidentified Analyst Okay. Thank you. Britaldo Soares Liliana this is Britaldo. Cyrino gave you an overview of what we have been discussing. Of course, there is a very positive aspect to emphasize which is the following: When we start to demolish tree of mines and energy and when we talk to the regulatory agency, we see a clear concern on the part of the ministry and the other part of the regulatory agency, to deal with the GSF issue because of the impact it has on generating company. It is a relevant impact and as we said to date it is recognized by everyone and that is no doubt an evolution in the process and of course there are challenges for us to implement a solution. But I can tell you that today as we see it, there is genuine interest on the part of the ministry, on the part of Aneao, they are getting ready to start the public hearing period as you know to deal with this issue. So then what concerns the mechanism itself, we have several ongoing discussions, there are several points which were raised during this discussion, some of them are with more resonance of this plants, resonance and that’s typical of that type of situation when you are discussing how to adjust such a relevant impact. But again clearly what you can see is that both the ministry and the regulatory agency trying to converge in terms of finding a solution to tackle that impact of the GSF on generation. What I can tell you now is that we have high expectations that this will be resolved, hopefully with the special mechanisms still to be fine, okay. Operator The next question comes from Sarunas Andriukaitis from Covalis Capital, and it’s a web question. Sarunas Andriukaitis What is the status for the restructuring of Brasiliana, is there an update concerning the schedule of the process? Britaldo Soares Sarunas, when we have any change, news on the Brasiliana issue we will announce this to the market that everything we have already said in a previous announcements and any new negotiations between shareholders that results an impact AES Tiete, we will duly announce it to the market. Operator The next question comes from [indiscernible]. Unidentified Analyst Good morning everyone, thank you for the call. I have a question about the strategy of the commercialization of the company. This 83% level, is it the ceiling for this year compared to the contracted level and concerning the strategy that the company has, there is low level of contracted energy recorded, is this a trend or should we expect an increase for the following quarters? Britaldo Soares Thank you Rafael, I will give the floor to Ricardo Cyrino and I will make any comments at the end if necessary. Ricardo Cyrino For 2016, in a situation we have today for the reservoirs in April, be closing at 35% and the certainty that we have in terms of hydrology, how the reservoirs will be in the rain period, the idea is to keep at this level of this contracting level for a flexibility in 2016. And as we see the development of the conditions of the system we may change this level but for the time being we are seeking to contract the period after 2016, for contracts beginning in 2017, in order to welcome the contracted levels as of that date. Britaldo Soares Okay Rafael thank you very much. Operator [Operator Instructions] The next question comes from [indiscernible] from UBS. Unidentified Analyst Hi, this is [indiscernible] again. One question about your thermal project. You have said recently that you could be participating in the five options for the gas thermal plants at San Paulo plant. How do you see gas prices behaving and what kind of structure will you need should you decide to do it. Thank you. Andres Gluski Ricardo Cyrino, can you please address question? Ricardo Cyrino Sure. We have our main project is, which called thermal power which was certified by the A Minus 5 auction [ph] but because of the gas concept that we have, we were structuring a contracting of liquefied gas, importantly liquefied gas and then we will be terminals and the float will be paying for that using that cost structure did not fit the filling price, which was defined as 2.81 per kilowatt hour. That’s why we did not participate on the A minus five auction on last April. But we are trying to develop new alternatives, going through new negotiations so that we could have a project which would be closer to that price level and of course we are also waiting for the government agencies to recognize that if we have to bring the gas from a part if we do not have an associated terminal that cost structure needs to be reviewed. Unidentified Analyst Okay just to understand. So, it’s not become moderately priced but the structure price that terminals and everything, right? Ricardo Cyrino Mainly, I’d say that issue arise at the whole scenery when you add other causes in the chain for the gas under that solution we do not have [indiscernible]. Unidentified Analyst Okay. Thank you. Britaldo Soares We want to just to compliment to Ricardo, we need to carry on working, to adapt those costs parameters through that reality so that we can maximize the use of those installations for regasification, so we know it has been working on it. And the idea is that we are able to make that structure feasible in terms of costs and that would of course make other projects feasible in the end. Unidentified Analyst Okay. Thank you. Operator The next question comes from [indiscernible] Unidentified Analyst I would like to talk again about the GSS and I know that the scenario we’re still looking for developments and the negotiations. But in your scenario, is the idea that any change in 2015 will affect the year or would it be as of a new methodology is developed or even if anything concerning last year, since last year we did have a dispatch and a level risk above the model and I’d like to understand a little bit more about and hear from you what could be considered seeing that what has already affected the last [indiscernible] the generators. Andres Gluski Obviously Eduardo that in our discussions and within the definitions and concept we have been discussing and that have been explained by Ricardo Cyrino this leads us to discussing what has already happened of the impact that has been felt by the generators. So there is retroaction. Therefore we are discussing a retroactive aspect of a solution that has to encompass things that have already taken place. No shadow of doubt in terms of that. In terms of practical view this will all depend of the final understanding of would this be in 2015, if this will go back and retract to 2014, because in fact what we are discussing the concepts they are not specific to the years 2014 or 2015 but they address the problem of the reduction of the GSF and the causes of this as Ricardo listed. So, it’s a conceptual discussion and as of that you then develop your line of thoughts. Obviously that in the negotiation of the process, it may be defined that there is a starting day for this but being very pragmatic, yes there is wish to have a very attractive affects but the starting point in practice will depend in my point of view, from a final understanding and of all the process that is taking place to discuss this at the ministry or at the regulator. Unidentified Analyst And Britaldo, do you have an idea when this will be finished? Britaldo Soares I believe that today, we are focusing a lot both on the part of the regulator, both the ministry as well. But it’s very hard to say of a certain period or a time, it may take place in the first semester, yes but it really depends on the solution. It’s a matter that if some more complex and depending on the shrug shared measures there maybe measures necessary that take time. So, it’s very hard to say but I see that the matter is developing at a much better pace today and with much more efforts from the point of view of the ministry and effort done in the past. But even so it’s difficult to say a date because these things mature and they consolidate slowly, and it’s a solution that is complex. Unidentified Analyst Thank you. Operator The next question comes from [indiscernible]. Unidentified Analyst I would like to understand the cost a little better, we see better numbers for cost this quarter did any nonrecurring item worth mentioning took place? Andres Gluski Thank you André I’ll ask Morandi to address your question. Please Morandi. Britaldo Soares Thank you. Basically, Andre we saw reduction in maintenance cost. This happened this quarter and impacted reduction PMSO. Unidentified Analyst So, again we could see those figures at the same level going forward, am I right? Britaldo Soares I think looking PMSO what we followed and we maintained the guidance so to keep those cost in real terms of those levels, yes. Unidentified Analyst Okay. Then there could be better way to look at PMSO lookout going forward. Andres Gluski Thank you for your question. Operator Thus again, we see no more question, I’d like to give the call back to Soares for his final remarks. Britaldo Soares Thank you all for participating in this call we are as always for other queries or comments you may have, the whole team of IRO team they’re always available at your disposal. Once again thank you and have a nice day. Operator AES Tiete’s conference call is now over. Thank you all for participating and have a nice day. Thank you. 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!

IDACORP’s (IDA) CEO Darrel Anderson on Q4 2014 Results – Earnings Call Transcript

IDACORP Incorporated (NYSE: IDA ) Q4 2014 Earnings Conference Call February 19, 2015 04:30 PM ET Executives Lawrence Spencer – Director, IR Steve Keen – SVP, CFO and Treasurer Darrel Anderson – President and CEO Vern Porter – VP, Idaho Power Analysts Paul Ridzon – KeyBanc Capital Markets Brian Russo – Ladenburg Thalmann Andy Levi – Avon Capital Advisors Operator Welcome to IDACORP’s Fourth Quarter 2014 Conference Call. Today’s call is being recorded and webcast live. A complete replay will be available from the end of the day for a period of 12 months on the Company’s Web site at www.idacorpinc.com. [Operator Instructions] At this time, I would like to turn the call over to IDACORP’s Director of Investor Relations, Mr. Lawrence Spencer. Please go ahead. Lawrence Spencer Thank you and good afternoon. As you have probably seen we issued our earnings release and Form 10-K before the markets opened today and they are both posted to the IDACORP Web site. We will be using a few slides to supplement today’s call, and you can also find those on our Web site. We will refer those slides as we work our way through today’s presentation. On today’s call we have Darrel Anderson, IDACORP’s President and Chief Executive Officer; and Steve Keen, IDACORP’s Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer. We also have other individuals to help answer your questions during the Q&A period. Before turning the presentation over to Steve, I’ll cover our Safe Harbor statement on Slide 3. Our presentation today will include forward-looking statements. While these forward-looking statements represent our current judgment or opinion of what the future holds, these statements are subject to risks and uncertainties that may cause actual results to differ materially from statements made today. So we caution you against placing undue reliance on these forward-looking statements. Some of the factors and events that could cause future results to differ materially from those included in forward-looking statements are listed on Slide 3 and included in our filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, which we encourage you to review. On Slide 4, we present our quarterly and year-to-date financial results. IDACORP’s fourth quarter 2014 earnings per diluted share were $0.69, an increase of $0.14 per share from last year’s fourth quarter. For the 2014 earnings per diluted share were $3.85, $0.21 more than last year’s comparable period. I’ll now turn it over to Steve to discuss the end results in greater detail and review our estimated 2015 key operating metrics. Steve Keen Thanks, Larry and good afternoon, everyone. I’ll cover the reconciliation of earnings from 2013 to 2014, our cash flow and liquidity positions and as Larry mentioned some estimated 2015 key operating and financial metrics. To help understand our 2014 results on Slide 5 we present a reconciliation of earnings from 2013 to 2014. Overall net income increased by $11.1 million largely due to lower income tax expense resulting from a tax method change that I will discuss in a moment. Idaho Power’s operating income declined by $38 million from 2013 to 2014. Lower overall usage in the residential and irrigation customer classes due to more moderate temperatures and greater precipitation reduced operating income $38.1 million year-over-year. Those impacts were partially offset by increased sales from customer growth which benefited operating income by $9.1 million compared to 2013 the weather in 2014 was much more moderate. In 2013 we experienced increase heating and cooling degree days throughout the year at records level compared with the previous 10 years. Operating expenses in 2014 were also higher by $8.4 million due to greater labor related expenses along with increased depreciation and property taxes. Increased revenue sharing also reduced our operating income slightly as we will again share benefits with our Idaho customers under our Idaho regulatory settlement. Greater average construction work in progress representative of our ongoing construction activity resulted in a $3.9 million increase in the allowance for funds used during construction also an $11.6 million gain on sale of investments in 2013 did not repeat in 2014. The $29.1 million decrease in income tax as shown in the table represents the impact of a tax method change related to Idaho Power’s capitalized repairs deduction. This amount reflects the combined impact of $4.6 million of tax expense recorded in 2013 and $24.5 million of tax benefit recorded in 2014. We and others in the utility industry originally expected the new regulations to have a negative impact on capitalized repairs deduction. This expectation let us to accrue the $4.6 million of tax expense in 2013. New guidance from treasury in mid-2014 modified our interpretation and increased our expected benefits. This updated guidance was reflected in our 2013 tax return which we filed in September of 2014. A resulting additional tax benefit for the 2013 tax year was included in our third quarter 2014 financial results. In the fourth quarter of 2014, we completed our adoption of the new method for all years prior to 2013. The $29.1 million decrease in income tax is on the table reflects the impacts of the method change on all tax years through 2013 as well as the reversal of $4.6 million tax accrual recorded in calendar year 2013. The methodology underlying this change is expected to deliver a level of increased benefit annually based on the nature and amount of capital work performed each year. The table reflects that we recorded $7.8 million of additional tax benefit related to capitalized repairs in 2014, compared to the original tax accrual for 2013 which was based on the prior capitalized repairs methodology. And note 2 of the financial statements in the 10-K we filed today, the federal tax portion of this deduction is included in the line titled Capitalized Repairs Cost and the change from 2013 to 2014 is reflective of the single year federal income tax benefit from the new repairs methodology. The previously discussed $29.1 million of tax method change is reflected on the following line titled tax method change, capitalized repairs where the comparison of 2013 to 2014 reveal the impacts related to prior years. As we look at our potential future results we generally excluded the tax method change impacts from our earnings estimates. We are not currently aware of any additional forthcoming changes in tax policy that might cause adjustments to prior years. Please note that the capitalized repairs deduction originates in Idaho Power. An effective tax rate in the low 20s is what we currently estimate for Idaho Power next year. The remaining $19.8 million reduction in income taxes for 2014 primarily resulted from lower pre-tax income in 2014 compared with 2013. Moving now to Slide 6, we show IDACORP’s operating cash flows for 2014 and the liquidity position at December 31. Cash flows from operations for 2014 were $364 million, an increase of approximately $59 million over 2013. Changes in power supply cost collected under the Idaho Power cost adjustment mechanism drove most of the increase in operating cash flows. IDACORP and Idaho Power currently has in place the credit facilities of $125 million and $300 million respectively to meet short-term liquidity and operating requirements. The liquidity available under the credit facilities is shown on the bottom of Slide 6. Also there are 3 million IDACORP common shares available for issuance under IDACORP’s continuous equity program, no shares were issued during 2014 and we did not expect to issue new equity during 2015, except for modest amounts relating to employee compensation plans. Turning now to Slide 7, we are estimating 2015 O&M at between $340 million and $350 million. As you can tell from Slide 7 this is less than the actual 2014 expense of $355 million which I will speak to in a moment. Also we did not amortize any additional accumulated deferred investment tax credits in 2014, instead under our Idaho regulatory settlement in 2014 we recorded $8 million of current revenues to be refunded to Idaho customers and $16.7 million of additional pension expense further reducing the amount of pension benefits needed to be collected from customers in the future. Our 2014 O&M expense included the $16.7 million, removing this impact we anticipate only a modest increase in O&M for 2015 reflecting our ongoing diligence around actively managing cost. Our estimated capital expenditure range for 2015 is between $300 million and $310 million which includes between $45 million and $50 million for emission control equipment at the Jim Bridger plant. Page 54 in the Form 10-K filed today details some examples of anticipated ongoing infrastructure projects. For 2016, the estimated capital expenditure range is also from $300 million to $310 million. In total over the next five years we expect capital expenditures to approximate $1.5 billion. On the next role of Slide 7 we show that our expected 2015 hydroelectric generation ranges from 7.0 million to 9.0 million megawatt hours. As a reminder the median annual hydroelectric generation is 8.5 million megawatt hours. Finally we are initiating our 2015 earnings per share guidance in the range of $3.65 to $3.80 per diluted share which reflects normal weather conditions in our expectations of continuing effective cost management. As of today we do not expect to amortize additional accumulated deferred investment tax credits in 2015 under our new Idaho regulatory settlement. I’ll now turn the presentation over to Darrel. Darrel Anderson Thanks, Steve and good afternoon everyone. For 2014 we saw our seventh consecutive year of net income growth. In addition to that achievement I want to highlight a few of these 2014 items before looking forward. First Idaho Power’s 2014 return on year-end equity in the Idaho jurisdiction exceeded 10.5% which resulted in the company using no additional amortization of accumulated deferred investment tax credits under the 2011 Idaho regulatory settlements. In fact we got another year Idaho Power will share earnings with Idaho customers of almost $25 million. Over the last six years the company has returned over $118 million to customer reflecting a fact that the mechanism has been a win for customers as well as for shareholders. Additionally as illustrated on Slide 8 and as we have previously discussed we executed a new settlement during 2014 that extends many of the benefits of the 2011 settlement potentially through 2019. Which we again believe is a benefit to both shareholders and customers. As a final note on regulatory matters we have no intention to file a general rate case in 2015. Second as to our large infrastructure projects at the end of 2014 we achieved a notable milestone in one of Idaho Power’s two 500 kilovolt transmission projects the 300 mile Boardman to Hemingway line. On December 19th the Bureau of Land Management released the draft environmental impact patch statement for the project. Comments are due in March of this year with the expectation that a final environmental impact statement will be issued by the BLM during 2016. Third in 2014 we implemented safety for life an initiative to increase employees’ safety awareness and improve employees’ safety behaviors and practices while maintaining OSHA recordable injury rates well below utility industry national averages. For 2014 we saw a 40% reduction in the company’s OSHA recordable rate compared to 2013. Safety is one of Idaho Power’s core values and our employees have worked hard to focus on safety asses the hazards of our work make safe choices on how we work and speak up when see hazardous situations. We have made good progress and we will work to continue that positive safety momentum in 2015 and beyond. Finally in 2014 Public Utilities Fortnightly named Idaho Power to its prestigious list of 40 best energy companies. Our company made a substantial jump in the rankings from 29 to 17 with our fully integrated business model cited as a key to the company’s continued success. Looking forward on the resource planning side Idaho Power intends to file its 2015 integrated resource plan by mid-year. This by annual planning document is our 20 year roadmap for meeting customer demand in a responsible cost effective way. In addition Idaho Power will continue its optimization efforts targeted to prudently managing both operating and maintenance expenses and capital expenditures. While we continue that focus on cost management we will also continue our active promotion of growth in Idaho Power service area. During the past four years we have experienced growth in our customer count and we have seen and helped to promote positive economic development. We are seeing those efforts pay off as a number of large businesses have elected to locate or expand their operations in our service territory. Slide 9 shows our customer growth increase of 1.4% from 2013 to 2014. During 2014 Idaho Power’s customer count grew by more than 7,300 customers. We believe that this growth will continue our most recent load forecast which we expect to incorporate into the 2015 integrated resource planning process predicts a 1.4% five year compound annual growth rate in residential loads and a 2.1% five year compound annual growth rate in residential customers. Other indicators of the economic condition of our service area include in an unemployment rate in our Idaho service area of 3.6% at December 31, 2014 compared to 5.3% a year ago and a national rate of 5.6%. In addition gross area product for our service area as reported by Moody’s Analytics grew by 1.9% in 2014 and is projected to grow 3.1% and 3.5% in 2015 and 2016 respectively. Slide 10 is a look at the projected March to May weather outlook. Temperatures for January were 2 to 6 degrees above normal for the entire region with the exception of the lower Treasure Valley which averaged 1 degree below normal. Precipitation was below normal for the entire region. During February, we expect temperatures to be slightly above normal. March through May projection suggests that there is an equal chance for above or below normal precipitation in Idaho Power service area and a 40% to 50% chance of above normal temperatures. An additional area of focus I want to mention today has been IDACORP’s dividend. From the beginning of 2012 to 2014, IDACORP’s Board of Directors has approved a collective 57% increase in the quarterly dividend from $0.30 to $0.47 per share. You may remember that in September of last year the IDACORP Board approved an increase in the quarterly dividend rate from $0.43 per share to $0.47 per share, a 9.3% increase. This was continued progress toward achieving IDACORP’s previously adopted target dividend payout ratio of between 50% and 60% of sustainable IDACORP earnings. Management continues to anticipate recommending to the Board additional annual increases of over 5% until the dividend reaches the upper end of the target dividend payout ratio. One last bit of news for you is that the Governor of Idaho, Butch Otter announced yesterday in a news release that Kristine Sasser, a veteran legal counsel for the Idaho Public Utilities Commission will succeed retiring Commissioner Marsha Smith on a three-member commission. Commissioner Smith is retiring after serving on the commission since being appointed in 1991. Like Commissioner Smith, Sasser is a Democrat and will serve a six-year term as commissioner. Sasser’s final appointment is subject to Idaho Senate confirmation. And now I and others on the call will be happy to answer questions you may have. Question-and-Answer Session Operator Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, we will begin the question-and-answer session. [Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from the line of Paul Ridzon of KeyBanc. Your line is now open. Paul Ridzon Was weather in ’14 I know is below that of ’13, but how did it compare to normal? Darrel Anderson Paul, we will say it is pretty close to normal if anything it may have been slightly on the low side, but it’s very close, it was much more would approximate a normal year than ’13. Paul Ridzon And I saw you had 10% industrial sales growth in the year what drove that? Darrel Anderson Well, Paul I’d say that most of our growth is coming from items that you would say are not headline news, it’s not big customers it’s kind of some growth with our customers that have already been here, we’ve had some expansions, we’ve had announcements that we have put out a few years ago that some of those are now coming online and expanding their lines of operations and it’s really been small increments across the board but I think industrial picked up and we continue to have residential inflow as the State of Idaho still looks like a favorable place to live. Paul Ridzon And you said, you indicated low 20s for your effective tax rate in this year? Darrel Anderson That’s correct Paul. Paul Ridzon And where do you see that going in the next couple of years? Darrel Anderson Paul based on the primary impact on that is the repairs deduction and with our planned expenditures being fairly close to what we did this year and fairly level over the next few years around $300 million, we don’t expect major shifts. It is based on the type of additions you do each year and it’s a very technical process that is work order by work order but as we would just look ahead, we would think that we don’t see wild changes in that as we move forward. So that’s the primary change from where we have been is the stepped up benefit coming out of the repair side. Paul Ridzon So kind of think low 20s for the next few years? Darrel Anderson Yes we didn’t — I haven’t looked at the rate beyond next year, the rate for us I would give you one cautionary thing there is the rate is sensitive to changes in the top-line. So as our revenues go up, the flow through items don’t necessarily move up and down based on changes in the top-line and ’13 is a good example of that, if you go run the numbers for 2013, you’ll see that income before taxes is a lot higher while there is flow through doesn’t necessarily lift up in proportion and so what happens as you get a higher tax rate because you’re not getting additional flow through items for those additional revenues to show up. So part of predict down in the future in our 20% — low 20s is really related to next year, as we sit here today. Paul Ridzon And Darrel I had one question, do you think it will be okay if Steve and his guys didn’t make cash for this year? Darrel Anderson I will let Steve respond to that one. Steve Keen Paul I am not worthy of that Dean Marko and his team are probably the ones you need to talk to on that, they do a fine job for it that is for sure. Operator Thank you. Our next question comes from Brian Russo, Ladenburg Thalmann. Your line is now open. Brian Russo Just to clarify your response to the last question is the below 20% tax rate is that for 2015 or is that for 2016? Darrel Anderson 2015. Brian Russo Okay. Darrel Anderson That is through the NSDM but yes that is 2015. Brian Russo And your guidance it doesn’t assume any sharing does it? Darrel Anderson We didn’t really address that but if you look at where we were first of last year where we said zero to $5 million of ADITC that’s an indicator we’re down near the floor where we are bumping into the 9.5%. There is a band of roughly $10 million I would say between there and where we begin this year you add in this for the tax item added little over $7 million last year it doesn’t necessarily drive the up to level where you look at sharing. So because we didn’t actually published the exact number we had in our early forecast somewhere between zero and five for last year. And we move somewhere above the 9.5 line but my guess is that it’s not enough to shift with the sharing. Steve Keen By the line is Brian that range that we have out there. We would anticipate that we’re within that debt band area because obviously we’re not using credits and so we’re kind of living that debt band for with the range that we provided. Brian Russo And could just elaborate on some of the commentary in the 10-K around the EIRP you guys say that you’ll be able to meet near term peak capacity deficit until Boardman to Hemingway is completed in 2021. Can you just maybe elaborate on that? Darrel Anderson So as you know we are right now in the middle of the IRP process we’re kind of going though the IRPAC process and meeting with constituents that work on that process. And if you look at our disclosure around on Page 15 of our 10-K we do talk a little bit about what some of those assumptions are that give rise to the date being what we’re say right now is in 2021 or so. So there are number of things the impact that probably one of the biggest things right now we don’t have a really good answer for us what might be the impact of one 11-D. As you know we made hear something back from BPA later this year on that — that could have an impact our growth numbers may have an impact. We talk about new large loads that could have an impact. But based on the assumptions that we have in there today we are seeing that from a capacity perspective as we sit today on peak hour basis 2021 or beyond is where we stand right now. Which does think up at least today with respect to what we are anticipating the potential in service date that we could see for Boardman to Hemingway again what I would tell you is we’re right in the middle of that process and we’re going have to let that process play out. We get a chance to update you on that likely at end of our first quarter call because we’ll be pretty close to that will be well down the line as it relates to the IRP. So you’ll some insights there as to what direction that might be headed. I wish I could give you more definitive answers but right now it would be the cart way before the horse is based on where that process is today. Brian Russo And then just to clarify the change in the capitalized repair cost from ’13 to ’14 roughly $7 million to $8 million, that’s what ongoing correct? Darrel Anderson That’s representative an annual amount. So that’s why we highlighted that pulled it out of the prior year adjustment. It could vary it’s going to vary based on the actual capital that we spend and what kind of items that we might get called by this repair but we think that representative of what we expect in the future. Brian Russo And then just lastly just an update on Gateway West transmission line. Darrel Anderson What kind of update would like Brian it’s ongoing well I can do is that Vern Porter who is with us today. Who will be able to speak to Gateway West? Vern Porter So back in November 2013 if you remember the deal initiative record to a decision for most of the project and we are continuing to work on the two most Western segment 89 that travel through the birds of prey area here before I get to the Hemingway substation. So the decision has been made to do a supplemental EIS environmental impact study for that project and we expect that the BLM issues a record decision sometime in 2016 with respect to that. So worker is continuing and environmental we’ll continue to work on that and secure that record of decision. Brian Russo And remind me what is the total cost of that line is and what at a group share? Darrel Anderson So Brian our estimated cost on that line is $200 million to $400 is what we project that to be. But that’s beyond the high-end forecast periods that we have right now and we would looking to spend those dollars. Brian Russo And just curious if everything goes well with the permitting as you stand today hypothetically when would this transmission line be operational. Darrel Anderson So Brian you’re still speaking to Gateway right. Brian Russo Yes certainly. Darrel Anderson Okay, okay Vern you want to? Vern Porter Yes we expect that the project will built from the east to the west, so we expect it sometime in the maybe end of this decade early decade that pacific core will be building from Eastern Wyoming to cross to our popular substation which is also their popular substation and actually we joint own it, but sometime in that timeframe. And then going all the way across Southern Idaho to Hemingway substation be sometime maybe early to mid next decade. Operator Thank you. Our next question comes from Andy Levi or Avon Capital Advisors. Your line is now open. Andy Levi Just want to make sure I am very-very clear on this, so let’s just call it the 8 million is for the repairs tax it’s about $0.15 a share in ’15 and I guess my understanding is that you have about $300 million of CapEx every year, right? Darrel Anderson Correct, that is our current estimate. Andy Levi And the CapEx is very similar each year. So with the exception of having to go in for rate case which you don’t see for the foreseeable future that $0.15 theoretically should continue in ’16, ’17 and even ’18, so is that kind of a fair way to look at it? Darrel Anderson That is what we’re telegraphing and I would say there is variability around it, could it be off 10%, 20% if things move year-to-year and we’ll watch that as we get closer. But we certainly have stepped up an increment from where we were prior to this new guidance. Andy Levi And what would make it move around just to understand that mechanically either high or lower? Darrel Anderson It’s really dependent on the actual work that we do and… Andy Levi So could you be more specific on that like what quality… Darrel Anderson So example, you could have a storm that blows down effects your line and it is exactly dependent upon how much of line would get replaced and there is a limit that qualifies for a repair and if it goes beyond that then it wouldn’t qualify for repair. I would say that overtime, we tend it to be fairly predictable with our repairs, and if you look at it note 2 that we have it’s a pretty steady number that we’ve had in there in the past. So I… Andy Levi How much is that of your total CapEx if it qualifies for a repair? Darrel Anderson I’ll turn it over here to our tax experts to… Andy Levi Thank you, I am just curious, I want to really understand this. Darrel Anderson If you want to see the gross number, the non-tax effective numbers you to note 2 to the capitalized repairs cost line it’s on Page 91 of our 10-K. Andy Levi Okay. Darrel Anderson And you divide it by 35% you will get a gross number and that would be a gross deduction that will be comparable to what would be seen pulled out of our capital spend as a repair deduction. Andy Levi I don’t understand what Page 91 of the 10-K 35%, which note is it? Darrel Anderson Note 2 the first table in note 2 and the line is called capitalized repair costs. Andy Levi Right, okay. Darrel Anderson $26 million and you divide that by 35% that gives you a gross. Andy Levi Got it, and that’s a total kind of CapEx number, this really not big a number out of the total CapEx I guess? Darrel Anderson That’s about 75 million if you do that math Andy. Steve Keen That’s the portion of the CapEx. Darrel Anderson To be qualified. Steve Keen Yes. Andy Levi So that continues on until either you don’t have that repairs amount, or let’s just assume that you do every year, assume your repairing things all the time, what would make it go away is it a rate case or… Steve Keen Well in terms of how, that is a good question, in terms of how it provides an income lift is it would predominantly be a rate filing, that when you do a rate filing you reset everything that’s included in cost of service and it should be one of the line items that would be part of that, so you would see an adjustment at that time. You could change in the regulations clearly has moved it in this case, it was a change that lifted our expectations for future deductions and just a change in what you are in terms of your expected types of CapEx, and we put we highlighted a few more infrastructure changes in our 10-K this year to give you an idea of the ongoing nature of what we’re doing, but as you look through those we’ll see that they really are things that last over period of time it’s not like a big project, it’s going to be done in six months that’s really things we do each year. Andy Levi And I know categories flow through I guess from what [indiscernible]? Steve Keen Yes, and the flow through relates with why we don’t put the deferred taxes against that which would eliminate it having an income impact it would simply be a cash benefit and that is due to a choice that was really made by our regulator in Idaho that that is the method of accounting we follow for these and it’s a couple of decades old that we’ve been on that methodology. Andy Levi And then it’s really the tax ruling from last year that’s kind of increased the amount I guess right? Steve Keen Right and the repairs regulations impact a lot of industries other than utility. I think prior to this updated regulation utilities were one of the more predominant users of repairs and I know the initial thoughts were that when the regulations were issued. It appears that there might be a little more constrained in terms of what would qualify and what would not and it was really some clarifications that came out mid last year. That explained that in a way that we could see that the products won more benefit we actually brought that back put it into a tax return gave that through the IRS and they looked at it for 2013 and we have a result that has been agreed to for last year that’s now reflected and it’s really that methodology that we drilled into 2014. Andy Levi And IRS doesn’t have to approve it every year right, now it’s kind of like a given right? Steve Keen Well they will look at the tax return every year I mean we do get out of it annually. But the fact that I get some comfort in the fact that they did look at our tax return last year that had a new methodology and we reached an agreement and as Dean’s team goes forward they take what they learn out of each audit supply candidate in the next year. So you have it is not a guarantee they’re going do everything exactly the same year-to-year. But it’s nice to have that current of the year that they have reviewed. Andy Levi And then basically this obviously adds your common equity. So gives you head room as far as you ROE is concerned and obviously [indiscernible] that way and it also allows you between that and your ADITC state of the greater enough for quite some time. But when you do go back whenever that maybe if it’s 2019 or 20 or whenever it is when you go into the rate arena that’s when the rate based would be trued up based on this, is that correct? Steve Keen We would true up everything that we would true up rate base and you would also true up your cost to service line all your expenses would be updated as well. Andy Levi So really behaves you stay out as long as possible at the same time benefits the customer because you’re not going in for rates? Steve Keen Well I would say that repairs deduction does provide cash flow as well you get the deduction and you also get some cash from that. The decision on whether you file a rate case is really more something you look at independently and we watch both the rate base side and the cost service side and it’s really when that gets out a balance and you feel like you need to go recover more ten you go file. Don’t know that this is really viewed as an item keep us out is another change and it does help our earnings little bit and provide some cash flow. But if you spend enough on CapEx you still have the need for rate case. Andy Levi I’m probably getting daggers from people here in New York who wants to go home. So lot of question I had offline but thank you very-very much. Operator [Operator Instruction] That does conclude today’s question-and-answer session Mr. Anderson I will turn the conference back over to you. Darrel Anderson Thank you and thanks everybody for participating on our call this afternoon. We actually also are with you with all the tough weather a lot of you guys have had here this winter and we hope you guys are all surviving and we also appreciate your continued interest in our Company. We look forward to talk to you guys in the future. Thanks a lot. Operator That concludes today’s conference. Thank you for your participation. 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!